This figure was taken from 4 days of playing, averaging about 6 hours a day, at various level between 2/4 up to 5/10 NL. With figures like these, what chance do the average slightly better than break-even players have? Still surprised that WSEX's rake free room didn't take off. Are we all so vain that we think we can beat the rake over time? And anyone who plays regularly without a good rakeback deal needs their head examining.
Rake this month: €514.82 (this is in euros, times by 1.3 for USD) Raked hands this month: 773
> Rake this month: €514.82 (this is in euros, times by 1.3 for USD) > Raked hands this month: 773
86 cents a hand?
Try a max 6.00 + 1.00 drop on a 3-6LHE game. Have fun.
======================================== You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious, nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave. ======== BOOM byae John
John_Brian_K wrote: >> Rake this month: €514.82 (this is in euros, times by 1.3 for USD) >> Raked hands this month: 773
> 86 cents a hand?
> Try a max 6.00 + 1.00 drop on a 3-6LHE game. Have fun.
Well, that presumably is rake paid by OP which is only the hands he won. So it's not really possible to assess rake per hand, and you also need to multiply that by 1.3 before you throw in "cents". But yea, the rake renders many low limit games unbeatable, like the Greektown game I think you are referring to here.
nicklas.w...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: > This figure was taken from 4 days of playing, averaging about 6 hours > a day, at various level between 2/4 up to 5/10 NL. With figures like > these, what chance do the average slightly better than break-even > players have? Still surprised that WSEX's rake free room didn't take > off. Are we all so vain that we think we can beat the rake over > time? And anyone who plays regularly without a good rakeback deal > needs their head examining.
> Rake this month: €514.82 (this is in euros, times by 1.3 for USD) > Raked hands this month: 773
Well a game like 5/10 NL is a pretty big game. I would think a normal buy in for that game is going to be $500+, so the swings in a game like that make that rake seem, perhaps, not so severe. But of course the rake is always there and it always kills. I am not sure how you define a "break-even" player. To me, a "break-even" player is beating the rake already. The fact that the rake is there is why there are so few players who actually win.
As for rake free rooms, I dunno, it seems like a good idea. It will always get mentioned that the fish don't care about the rake so the games in a "rake-free" environment will be bad. Especially if the site requires a monthly fee or something like that. The average loser doesn't want to pay a fee to play, he just wants to put his money in and gamb00l. He probably doesn't think about the rake one bit.
If you're a great player, you should be able to beat those tough games anyway. But beat them for how much, versus how much you can win from the fish who don't even think about rake? Hard to say. Maybe game selection considerations outweigh rake considerations. For whatever reason, this stuff never seems to take off. Remember Dutch Boyd?
On Nov 18, 1:53 pm, nicklas.w...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> This figure was taken from 4 days of playing, averaging about 6 hours > a day, at various level between 2/4 up to 5/10 NL. With figures like > these, what chance do the average slightly better than break-even > players have? Still surprised that WSEX's rake free room didn't take > off. Are we all so vain that we think we can beat the rake over > time? And anyone who plays regularly without a good rakeback deal > needs their head examining.
> Rake this month: €514.82 (this is in euros, times by 1.3 for USD) > Raked hands this month: 773
A question: If the rake was 515 (rounding to the old country money), what was your profit? How much did you make? If you made 5,000, then 515 would be 'bad'. If you made 50,000, then 515 wouldn't be 'bad'. If you made 25,000, then 515 would be 'well, O.K.' There IS a cost of business. How much does it cost you to play at home? How much does it cost you to go some place to play live? What is the going rate for 'bangers and mash'?
> On Nov 18, 1:53 pm, nicklas.w...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> > This figure was taken from 4 days of playing, averaging about 6 hours > > a day, at various level between 2/4 up to 5/10 NL. With figures like > > these, what chance do the average slightly better than break-even > > players have? Still surprised that WSEX's rake free room didn't take > > off. Are we all so vain that we think we can beat the rake over > > time? And anyone who plays regularly without a good rakeback deal > > needs their head examining.
> > Rake this month: €514.82 (this is in euros, times by 1.3 for USD) > > Raked hands this month: 773
> A question: If the rake was 515 (rounding to the old country money), > what was your profit? How much did you make? If you made 5,000, then > 515 would be 'bad'. If you made 50,000, then 515 wouldn't be 'bad'. > If you made 25,000, then 515 would be 'well, O.K.' There IS a cost of > business. How much does it cost you to play at home? How much does > it cost you to go some place to play live? What is the going rate for > 'bangers and mash'?
you may be able to make 25K to 50K with 773 raked hands at 2/4 to 5/10 NL, but I doubt many others could.
Last time I looked, the going rate is 2 bangers and mash to an oz of jellied eel. Or half a crown and a farthing in real money.
