Of course! the high rake is offset by the amount of presents that the players at the lowest stakes give out to you! If you're struggling I would recommend calling a little less on the river and betting more and bigger with value hands. Players at that stake often overvalue weak hands and or want to pay to see anyway. Just keep working on your game and the results will eventually come, but it's definitely possible to be profitable!
Actually the 2NL rake on 888 Poker is 1c for every 16c so more than 6%. So everything else being equal its easier to beat 2NL on PokerStars, since they only charge 3,5%. In my opinion the best games on 888 Poker are their MTTs.
I think the rake on the tables is the smallest problem. The big problem with online poker cash games is variance. In online poker, winning 5 blinds on 100 hands is very good value. But the variance in poker has brutal effects when you have a low win rate. The variance in poker is said to be 100 blinds per 100 hands. If your win rate is 5 blinds on 100 hands, which as I said is a very good value, then you can be 95 blinds in the minus on 100 hands! You have to play a lot of hands to even out the variance. For someone who only plays 2 tables for 2 hours a day, it is impossible to beat the variance.
Yea but it's hard, I win but I pay more in rake then I do win. I played all year on Pokerstars Omaha and only made 380$ playing 1/2cent and some 2/5cent.
Not literally all year, but I played probably 100k hands. If I had my rake, I would of made like 3grand. I paid 500$ of rake to Pokerstars in 1 month going for a challenge.
By the way, Pokerstars decided to go max greasy and flag my account for being a "gambling addict", right before I completed this challenge...
They also sent me an SJW email about how the objective of Poker is not to win, but to have fun, I asked them, "how much dope have you guys smoked today to make you write such nonsense".
No longer allowed to play at Pokerstars, doing 888 now, paying more rake but playing worse people, so balances out (so far).
Not literally all year, but I played probably 100k hands. If I had my rake, I would of made like 3grand. I paid 500$ of rake to Pokerstars in 1 month going for a challenge.
By the way, Pokerstars decided to go max greasy and flag my account for being a "gambling addict", right before I completed this challenge...
They also sent me an SJW email about how the objective of Poker is not to win, but to have fun, I asked them, "how much dope have you guys smoked today to make you write such nonsense".
No longer allowed to play at Pokerstars, doing 888 now, paying more rake but playing worse people, so balances out (so far).
Also if your only winning 5 blinds per 100 hands, the rake will destroy you, you will bleed money. You need to be winning like 30+ to beat the rake. It involves exploiting heavily certain players. That's how I turn a profit anyways.Zirkzee said:
Yes, the average rake percentage drops at higher levels.easy play said:
And low limit players have til play a linear rake.
The casino's should make it cheaper for low limet players.
I know Pokerstars "only" charge 3,5 % for 1/2c players, but it is still linear up to a pot of 8 USD which is rare.
kaptajn said:
TheBackpack said:
My experience on the sites has been similar. There's a greater % of really bad players on 888 vs. Stars, Partypoker & GGpoker. (I'm not sure at 2nl, but I do play micro/low stakes on some of the sites for recreation and this has been my experience).
kaptajn said:
I wrote an article about this a decade and more ago. I sent it to Gordon Brown, but never had a reply. Basically, if you sit there long enough, the rake will eat everything. The banks do this with the economy.
Agree, and you can clearly see it at a het-up cash table, if 2 players sit down with full stacks, then you can see the total stack getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller 🙂
It would perhaps be more fair if you paid the rake when you sit down, like in tournaments?
But the casinos would probably never accept?
It would perhaps be more fair if you paid the rake when you sit down, like in tournaments?
But the casinos would probably never accept?
easy play said:
That's true, but as I've pointed out elsewhere, if ten of you sit down and play $1/2 limit hold 'em each with a million dollar stack and play until there is one player left, by that time most of the money will have been raked off. No limit would end a lot quicker and result in a lot less rake but at the end of the day, the table is the outright winner.
After making little progress at the 888 micros I had a look at their rake structure. At NL2 they charge 6.25%, capped at 50c, which means it's virtually uncapped. Higher limits don't look better either. That's going to be tough to beat...
