does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

For low limit NL players at party (NL25, NL50, NL100) with rakeback deals, will the increase in rake (max $3) on 6-max tables help the really tight players (assuming the LAG players contribute higher % of rake)???

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

Yes the more rake the more rakeback. I suggest they rake $10 a pot so your rakeback can be $5000 a month. Jeesh

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

I think it's a valid observation.

Yes...I'm paying an extra dollar on the big pots that I win.
But I probably win less than 1/6 of the pots on a 6-player table if I'm tight-agressive...yet I get rake-back on ALL the pots that the LAG's drive up.

It's not that complicated...the rake-back on MGR is not directly related to the rake that I paid on the pots that I won.


I don't know whether it could actually be enough rake-back to benefit a TAG. I suspect that you will lose more in rake in won-pots than you can make up from all the LAG's battling it out in their big pots.

But I do acknowledge the possibility that it could be closer to evening-out than some people think.

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

they don't rake $10 a pot......yet

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes the more rake the more rakeback. I suggest they rake $10 a pot so your rakeback can be $5000 a month. Jeesh

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a really tight player. The following is based on Party stats as I don't use Pokertracker, so take it as you will. My win % avg. is extremely low, around 6%, and my flops seen % is around 25% for the 6-max. With no-limit, the amount I pay for the blinds can be far less then what limit people pay for pots big enough for the max rake to be taken. With playing $1/$2 6-max (if they have that), how often do you see the max rake taken?

My question was based on the way I play because I do not contribute nearly 1/6 of what the table contributes for rake.

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

Wait, I'm suddenly confused... I thought rakeback only helped on rake you actually paid, meaning you have to win the pot? Otherwise, if everyone at a table had 25% rakeback per raked pot that occurred at their table, Party would be losing money every hand, right? Maybe you were thinking of clearing bonuses where all that matters is being dealt into the hand?

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, if everyone at a table had 25% rakeback per raked pot that occurred at their table, Party would be losing money every hand, right?

[/ QUOTE ]


No.

If I'm on a 5-player table that takes a $2-rake on a hand then my contributed rake is $0.40 (each of the 5 players divided by the $2).
If I get 25% rake-back then I get back $0.10 for that hand.
If everyone gets 25% rake-back then they each get $0.10.


So for the $2-rake...if everyone got 25% rake-back then it is only $0.50 that the players are getting back.


Hope this helps you understand how it works.

you are NOT getting 25% of the TOTAL rake. You are only getting 25% of your fraction of the rake.


If every player got 95% rake-back then Party would STILL be making a profit (albeit a pretty darned small one).

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

The rake is divided evenly between all the players. Ten handed with a $1 rake everyone at the table is considered to have paid 10 cents. So if everyone had %25 rake back then they are kicking back a total of 25 cents per hand. 2.5 cents to each person.

Boo to bob's lightning typing!

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

Ha!!!!!

Re: does Party 6-max rake-increase help tight NL100 & under players?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Boo to bob's lightning typing!

[/ QUOTE ]

and he did it while 8 tabling 5/10 SH.