Cost of the Rake

[tallstack]

Your calcs are very close to what I have been told about the rake from my affiliate (I trust my affiliate, but it is always nice to see some calcs to back it up).

I am wondering though, are these your PT stats for average rake? If so, they will include games that are 5-handed, 4-handed, etc. So the average rake per player is likely even a little worse than your number show. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Dave

[stigmata]

I can't remember where I got them from.... I had this in jotted down in a notepad file. I think they were from another thread (respected poster), although I don't know if they were filtered for No. of players.

[D.H.]

A lot of different numbers in this thread. I checked poker tracker (43k hands at 5/10) and got these numbers:

Average rake/hand: $1.19
With 5.3 players at the table (also from PT) this corresponds to 2.25 BB/100 for the average player.

Me on the other hand have only paid 1.61 BB/100. Quite a bit lower than the average, but maybe that's how it should be.

[sublime]

m not convinced that the play at 5/10 is bad enough to make up for the high rake.

i am

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]
m not convinced that the play at 5/10 is bad enough to make up for the high rake.

i am

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if I was very clear here.... I meant in comparison to 10/20 - I don't think the players at 10/20 are that much better than 5/10 - Not enough to make up for 1BB/100 - i.e. I was suggesting that an excellent player could get a better BB/100 at 10/20 than 5/10.

Obviously, the appalling play at 5/10 makes it very beatable, whatever the rake.

[RiverMise]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of different numbers in this thread. I checked poker tracker (43k hands at 5/10) and got these numbers:

Average rake/hand: $1.19
With 5.3 players at the table (also from PT) this corresponds to 2.25 BB/100 for the average player.

Me on the other hand have only paid 1.61 BB/100. Quite a bit lower than the average, but maybe that's how it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]


Interesting... thanks for the data!

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not convinced that the play at 5/10 is bad enough to make up for the high rake. This would seem to suggest that larger winrates are acheivable at 10/20.


[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of different numbers in this thread. I checked poker tracker (43k hands at 5/10) and got these numbers:

Average rake/hand: $1.19
With 5.3 players at the table (also from PT) this corresponds to 2.25 BB/100 for the average player.


[/ QUOTE ]

This looks right, but...

I don't know why people find it so hard to get the average rake from PokerTracker. There's no need to calculate or anything like that. Just look at the bottom of the Summary page at the average win rate of all players. That's the rake. ("Do you see why?")

2.26BB/100 for $5/10.

My extensive 600 hand database for $10/20 shows 1.4BB/100 rake.

Guy.