higher BB/100 rate at six-max versus higher rake

Wynton · #1 11-11-2005, 02:05 PM

I've never bothered trying to figure out rake issues, so bear with me.

I assume that six-max players pay more rake than full-table players. I also assume that someone who is equally proficient at full tables and six-max would have a higher bb/100 rate at six-max. If these assumptions are correct, is it possible to know whether the increased rake one pays offsets the increased edge?

To put it differently, can one figure out how much more a six-max player would have to earn in order to offset the higher rake?

And has anyone tried to figure these questions out as far as they apply to themselves?

#2 11-11-2005, 02:10 PM

Ummm... I'm pretty sure BB/100 is the bottom line, that figure includes the the rake.

Wynton · #3 11-11-2005, 02:18 PM

Well, whether or not PT defines bb/100 to include rake, I think you understand the question.

If a good player makes the +x more in bb/100 NOT counting rake at six-max than full table, at what point does the rake become so much higher proportionally at six-max to discount their edge at six-max skillwise?

climber · #4 11-11-2005, 02:39 PM

I dont really see what the point of this question is...

If full games make you .1 BB/100 more than 6max are you gonna switch back?

You get roughly 1.6x as many hands per hour at 6max so if you are a winner and care about making money the main thing you should worry about is increasing the 100s.

DCWGaming · #5 11-11-2005, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont really see what the point of this question is...

If full games make you .1 BB/100 more than 6max are you gonna switch back?

You get roughly 1.6x as many hands per hour at 6max so if you are a winner and care about making money the main thing you should worry about is increasing the 100s.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense at all. If you are making .1BB/100 more at full handed and want to "increase the 100s" open 2 fullhanded tables. Thats more hands, more income, and less participation you actually have to put in, since full handed you'll be playing 15/11 or whatever.

Play what you like. Get rakeback.

#6 11-11-2005, 02:59 PM

My PT BB/100 is about the same in 6-max as in full handed (though variance is a bitch). However, I pay much more in rake since I'm getting 1/6th of the rake counted as my contribution each time. The net effect is:

1) My pre-rakeback BB/100 is the same
2) My rakeback is significantly larger
3) Since 6-max plays faster against fewer opponents, I play fewer tables than I did 10-handed, which I think is helping my hand reading ability.

All in all, 6-max is better for me than 10-handed.

mtdoak · #7 11-11-2005, 04:53 PM

The rake is the same/pot size. The difference really is your higher VPIP and your losses in the blinds. Considering PT takes rake out AFTER considering your rake, a 2 BB/100 winrate is GREATER shorthnaded than a 2 BB/100 full table, as your getting almost 100 hands/table/hr.

climber · #8 11-11-2005, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont really see what the point of this question is...

If full games make you .1 BB/100 more than 6max are you gonna switch back?

You get roughly 1.6x as many hands per hour at 6max so if you are a winner and care about making money the main thing you should worry about is increasing the 100s.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense at all. If you are making .1BB/100 more at full handed and want to "increase the 100s" open 2 fullhanded tables. Thats more hands, more income, and less participation you actually have to put in, since full handed you'll be playing 15/11 or whatever.

Play what you like. Get rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you wouldnt expect a 2BB/100 winner to see increased profit by getting more hands in?

extreme example: lets say i can fit 8 tables on my monitors and feel comfortable...480 hands per hour or 700 hands per hour. If you are winning 2 BB/100 i think that the 50% increase in hands played (not even metioning incresed rakeback) is gonna make 6 max the very easy choice.

compare apples to apples--you cant say more hands per hour isnt an important factor cause you could just play two full tables compared to one 6max table.

sy_or_bust · #9 11-11-2005, 05:17 PM

The hands/hr difference is certainly significant, and true for a single session. But the ability to play up to 10 tables on Party, which is significantly easier playing ring than short, can potentially make up this ground and then some. A lot depends on expected BB/100 in full vs. ring, rakeback, and game selection/availability.

It seems that a very good 5/10 ring 8-tabler can expect to earn significantly more than a 5/10 SH 4-tabler, and with less variance.