Partypoker rake from .5/1 to 30/60

[2ndGoat]

Partypoker rake statistics
______Avg Pot|Avg Rake|Rake % of Pot|Rake in BB/100|Sample Size
.5/1____7.77____0.37______4.71_________4.19________57 6
1/2____13.78___0.59______4.27_________2.94________79 5
2/4____27.55___0.92______3.35_________2.41________98 4
3/6____44.46___1.56______3.51_________2.63________16 70
5/10___65.00___2.09______3.21_________1.89________15 82
10/20__117.90__2.56______2.17_________1.22________743
15/30__224.90__2.65______1.18_________0.97________828 62
30/60__447.79__2.94______0.66_________0.42________276 9

Methodology:
The "sample" column is the number of hands used for the calculations. This includes the hands I have actually played- 12500 hands at 15/30, 50 hands at 10/20, and 150 hands at 30/60, and a whole lot of hands that I let pokertracker observe while I was at work or was sleeping. All hands are 6-handed or greater, except for <500 I have played shorthanded at 15/30 (I don't import observed hands <6-handed... and I'm switching that to 8-handed). The avg pot and rake numbers may be a touch high, because I usually observe tables with the longest wait lists (so they're most likely to last 8 hours) and those tables tend to have larger pots than average... at least at first.

The "Rake BB/100" column signifies how how many big bets the average player pays in rake every hundred hands at that limit. I pulled this rake/100 from the "BB/100" summary total column of pokertracker- When all players wins and losses' are added up, what's left is the rake.

Observations:
Tight players will pay less than the stated Rake BB/100 numebr, because they win fewer pots than the average player. For Instance, I carry a 21.5% VP$IP at 15/30, I have won 8.4% of the hands I have been dealt, and I have paid 17% less than the norm.

It makes sense that 3/6 is more expensive in Rake BB/100 than 2/4 because it is equivilant to playing 2/4 where .66 is raked at $13, $27, and $40, compared to real 2/4 where $1 is raked at 20/40/60... in the 3/6-type rake, you almost always get to .66, and usually 1.33, whereas in real 2/4 you're more often just hitting $1, and even avoiding that occasionally... enough to make up for the $3 poss. rake.

Sample sizes may be a bit low at the low end, but I'm still pretty confident there's some validity to the low limit numbers. If you want something more accurate, do it yourself :-p.

That's all.. just thought someone else might like to see this information. Anyone know how to make a table look right on these forums?

2ndGoat

[MicroBob]

interesting stuff.

a real eye-opener as to how much the rake really does hurt you at .5/1 through 3/6.

thanks for posting this.

[Reef]

too small sample sizes

[Art Vandelay]

You think sample size is too small? I'm no stats guru by any means but it would seem that it wouldn't take that large a sample for avg pot size and rake to start to even out.

[2ndGoat]

Like I said... you're welcome to run them longer yourself. I took 2 days out of my usual 15/30 off-hours analysis to compile the study.

The numbers hardly budge 5% in any direction from 200 hands to 1000, so I'm satisfied.

2ndGoat

[MicroBob]

I agree.

I can't see the numbers budging very much from what you show here. I don't think the sample-size is too small at all for a study such as this.

[Reef]

from my database:
2/4, 94k hands, $1.02 (don't know how bad beat jackpot rake factors in).

1/2, 12k hands, $.62

50 cent, 15k, $.38

[o0mr_bill0o]

I'd say the sample sizes are plenty high enough.

[mbpoker]

What about pots that are not raked - no flop. Your 30/60 rake is almost $3.00, which can't be right because these games have quite a few no-flop hands.

[InfernoLL]

I have 8400 hands at .50/1 and my number is exactly the same as his, 4.19 BB/100.