Partypoker rake from .5/1 to 30/60

[2ndGoat]

You're right, the "average rake" actually appears to be the average for raked hands only (though that's not perfect either...). Since the same strange formula is used for all limits, I think the numbers are still pretty close being correct realtive to other limits, if not in absolute terms.

My "I pay 17% less rake" statement is based on numbers calculated without this oddity.

When it comes to quality research, you get what you pay for...

2ndGoat

[La Brujita]

Thanks for doing this. I think it is very interesting. My 15/30 number is 2.47 for about 40k hands, 8.33 players, the explanation I always told myself (may be wrong) is basically any pot that is raked will hit $3 so the 2.47 reflects the non raked pots.

Does that make sense?

Edit to say I may have a higher percentage of short handed hands than you which possibly accounts for the difference.

[jtr]

Thanks for sharing this stuff, Goat. Very interesting. Finally I have an excuse for my appalling break-even spell at 2/4!

[bigmac366]

how did you get your PT to show you how much rake you paid in terms ob BB/100? thanks

[2ndGoat]

To see what the average player pays, look at the bottom column of the summary table, which shows the average player's win rate. This is the same thing as the average player's rake payment.

You have to do some arithmetic to see your own rake BB/100 stat- from your own page in the "general info" tab, look at the last column on the "player summary" table- "total rake." Divide by the big bet size of the limit you're analyzing, divide by the number of hands played, and multiply by 100.

2ndGoat

[SlantNGo]

This post also shows how important rakeback is. Over a small sample size (~2000 hands), my rakeback is 1.8 BB/100 at 1/2 full. This projects to almost 6 BB/100 in rake which is much higher than the figures you guys are showing here. Then again, maybe my table selection skills are very good [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Byrn]

[ QUOTE ]
______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

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming a 10 player table, this is saying 18.9 bb/100 and 9.7 bb/100 are being taken off the table at 5/10 and 15/30 respectively, correct?

Using that figure, also assuming there are 2 players making 1.5 bb/100 on each table, the other 8 players are giving up 21.9 and 12.7 bb/100 respectively, or 2.73 and 1.58 bb per person per 100 respectively (again 5/10 and 15/30).

Doesn't that seem like a lot? Am I missing something in the logic?

Assuming variance and bankroll aren't issues, this also implies that to NET 1bb/100, you have to be better than the table by 2.89 bb/100 at 5/10 and 1.97 bb/100 at 15/30.

To make the same $10 per 100 hands, you need to beat the 5/10 table for 2.89 bb/100 while you only need to beat the 15/30 table for 1.3 bb/100. Again assuming variance and bankroll aren't a factor, which we know they are in practice.

Is my math or logic off anywhere? Doesn't this seem to give a strong argument for pushing yourself to move up?

[bicyclekick]

Yeah about a month or 2 ago I did some math and found that I pay 53% less rake then the 'average' 15/30 party player.

This is because of a combination of reasons...
A) The rake total that shows up for rakeback is the table paid rake while sitting divided by the number of players
B) I play less hands and win less pots than the avg player so I pay less rake and therefor am getting rakeback on rake I didn't truly pay.

So really I end up paying about a $1.25 instead of $2.65...which makes a big difference.

[Tenacious A]

Does anyone have a decent sample size in their PT database for Party NL $25-$200? I'm interested to see where the average rake paid in those games fits in with the stats that 2nd Goat provided.

Thanks.

[KnickNut3]

I was playing .5/1 full ring Texas today at PP to clear a bonus, and according to my bonus account, only 160 of my 350 hands were raked (like 47% or so).

Is this realistic, or might there be some questionable calculations in the bonus department? It wasn't a particularly tight game... I'm under the gun to clear here, and I'll have to move up limits to do it at this rate.