Regarding the rake at 6-max...

blackaces13 · #1 12-02-2005, 11:18 AM

Ed Miller's article tells us that less rake per hand is one of the reasons that 6-max games are up to twice as profitable as full ring. Unless I'm mistaken all this boils down to is saying that at 6-max the average pots are smaller. I'm not aware of any structural rake differences at low limits between 6-max and full tables of the same limit.

In my experience the pots at 6 max are about equal to the pots at full ring but even if we assume that they are slightly smaller, it stands to reason that the rake is significantly higher per player being that you now have 6 players contributing marginally less to roughly the same amount in rake as a full table of 10 players.

I don't have data to back this up, so I might be off base, but it seems intuitive to me that 6-max players pay far more in rake per 100 hands than their full ring counterparts. I'm not calling into question whether or not 6-max is more profitable here at all, just stating that that particular reason seems false to me.

fyodor · #2 12-02-2005, 12:54 PM

For 6 players rake is capped at $3 as in full tables.
For 5 players rake is capped at $2
Tables avg less than 6 players. Typically 5.4 or so.
It stands to reason rake will be capped at $3 less often than at full tables.
This may or may not be correct as I am wrong about as often as I am right.

Fnord · #3 12-02-2005, 06:03 PM

The rake per player is much higher. The cardrooms are making a KILLING on these games.

You have to play more pots with a smaller edge.
These pots are activly contested either via the silly calls or mis-placed aggression. A lot of steal situations in online small stakes full ring end on earlier streets (granted my opponents are often giving up too easily.)
You must showdown more often with weaker holdings that you otherwise would dump in a full ring game because your opponents are more erratic and as a defensive measure.

Table selection is key, because if our opponents weren't so god-aweful-omfg-horrible these games would be very difficult to beat.

Getting dinged for $1, $1.5, $2 on almost every pot is far more expensive than getting hit up for $3 in out-of-control schooling pots.

#4 12-02-2005, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This may or may not be correct as I am wrong about as often as I am right.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did he say??? [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

me454555 · #5 12-03-2005, 03:35 PM

I have to disagree w/Ed Millers stance on the rake structure at the typical 6max online games. From my playing experience and pt #s, I estimate that you pay about 1sb/100 hands more in rake during a 6max game compared to a full ring of the same calibur. These numbers are taken from 3/6 full games but I feel the same generalization can be made for 5/10 b/c the rake structure is similar as compared to the size of the BB. Once you get beyond that, I cannot make assumptions as I have no data to support that.

As a side, I do not feel that it is possible to make more BB/hr playing 6 max as compared to full ring and I feel it is a less profitable overall game. The fact that you can play more hands/table is compensated by the fact that you can play more tables at full ring. An ideal setup w/2 monitors can yeild the same # of hands/hour b/c a full ringer can prolly play 8 tables at a time whereas a SHer will only play 6.

Ed Miller · #6 12-03-2005, 04:18 PM

Ya, upon further review, my rake comment probably wasn't right. I kind of threw it out there, but now that I've "investigated" a little more, I think you guys are right that you probably actually pay more rake overall.

I do, however, stand behind my assertion that 6-max is overall more profitable. The percentage of really terrible players at 6-max is nicely higher IMO.

Stefan Prodan · #7 12-03-2005, 04:55 PM

It should also be noted that this higher rake actually makes 6-max quite pleasurable if you happen to be clearing bonuses as well as playing. This alone might make it more profitable per hour for a lower-stakes player.

I also agree with Ed. When I first started playing 6max I expected tons of aggression, but while I do find a couple LAGgy players, I mostly also find at least one BIG calling station per table, and that's just great.

The Dude · #8 12-03-2005, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
An ideal setup w/2 monitors can yeild the same # of hands/hour b/c a full ringer can prolly play 8 tables at a time whereas a SHer will only play 6.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of people who can effectively play more than 6 SH tables at once. I do. That said, one will always be able to play more full games than SH - not just because full plays fewer hands/tbl hr, but because you can more generally autopilot full games.

The biggest reason to play the 6max games on Party is because they're so freaking soft.

me454555 · #9 12-03-2005, 07:16 PM

Ed,

Its been consistantly discussed in the HUSH forum about how a lot people seem to have lower winrates @ 6max than full. A good win rate @ 5/10 6max is usually about 1.7 bbs/100. An equally skilled full ringer can usually make about 2.25 BB/100. I think you're underestimating the amount that rake affects your bottom line at SH.

college_boy · #10 12-04-2005, 12:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ya, upon further review, my rake comment probably wasn't right. I kind of threw it out there, but now that I've "investigated" a little more, I think you guys are right that you probably actually pay more rake overall.

I do, however, stand behind my assertion that 6-max is overall more profitable. The percentage of really terrible players at 6-max is nicely higher IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect this is something you should have looked into before printing. The extra time it would have taken would be more than worth it in terms of your credibility as a writer.