Is rake too high in 1/2c cash?

[1player1]

I find it difficult to win at 1/2c cash tables.
I notice that the netto rake % is very high because you almost never hit the rake limit.

what do you think?

 

[fundiver199]

It depends on the poker site. PokerStars actually charge less rake for 2NL (3,5%), but on 888 Poker the rake is higher at 2NL (6+%). Most ofter site charge a "flat" 5% across the board. The rake per pot limit does not start to really matter until 100NL, so unless you play on 888 Poker, this will only get worse, when you move up.

 

[gamerwin123]

I play on coinpoker and SWC rake is like 2% for 2.5ishNL. They also have a grinders program if you put in a certain amount of BB towards rake you're rewarded. I put in like 500 BB (2500 chips) and the reward is 4000 chips actually 7.5$ profit

 

[1player1]

It depends on the poker site. PokerStars actually charge less rake for 2NL (3,5%), but on 888 Poker the rake is higher at 2NL (6+%). Most ofter site charge a "flat" 5% across the board. The rake per pot limit does not start to really matter until 100NL, so unless you play on 888 Poker, this will only get worse, when you move up.

Yeah, I noticed that 888 is very expensive for 1/2c players, so I might move my 1/2c play to Pokerstars.
When you move to higher stakes, then you more often hit the max. rake, and the rake will then be less in percentage, as the stack grows.
But then you need a much bigger bankroll. The rakeback is also better on higher stakes.

 

[1player1]

I play on coinpoker and SWC rake is like 2% for 2.5ishNL. They also have a grinders program if you put in a certain amount of BB towards rake you're rewarded. I put in like 500 BB (2500 chips) and the reward is 4000 chips actually 7.5$ profit

That is cheap, I'll check out the site, thanks

 

[gamerwin123]

use my referral if possible - https://coinpoker.com/!Ckwt

The site is great, supepr soft, come at 8:00 AM EST for all the Aussie donks

 

[1player1]

use my referral if possible - https://coinpoker.com/!Ckwt

The site is great, supepr soft, come at 8:00 AM EST for all the Aussie donks

I can see they have no licence with the Danish gaming authorities, so I can't play there

Anyway - thanks for the info

 

[gamerwin123]

I can see they have no licence with the Danish gaming authorities, so I can't play there

Anyway - thanks for the info

NP, I'm from US so it's much easier for me to use these type of bitcoin sites because they are unregulated but trustworthy. If I was from Europe I probably would choose something else though.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

It depends on the poker site. PokerStars actually charge less rake for 2NL (3,5%), but on 888 Poker the rake is higher at 2NL (6+%). Most ofter site charge a "flat" 5% across the board. The rake per pot limit does not start to really matter until 100NL, so unless you play on 888 Poker, this will only get worse, when you move up.

I disagree with the bolded and think the cap can have a larger impact than the percentage so you have to consider the combination of the two. I think this tiny sample exercise shows that. Feel free to do a more meaningful sample and post results if this is misleading.

Stars US takes 4.5% rake at 2NL and 5% for all higher stakes.
My DB shows 12.5 Buy Ins (BI) of rake paid at 2NL over 6.5k hands (1.92 BI per 1,000 hands).
My DB shows 3.6 BI of rake paid at 100NL over 5.5k hands (0.65 BI / 1,000)

Pretty HUGE difference in the amount of rake being paid per 1,000 hands and keep in mind the 2NL is a smaller percentage (4.5%) than the 100NL (5%). Samples are tiny but I think it's enough to show the difference.

 

[Poker_Mike]

I find it difficult to win at 1/2c cash tables.
I notice that the netto rake % is very high because you almost never hit the rake limit.

what do you think?

Online rake of 5% is huge. Hard to beat the rake.

SWC does have some small micro cash tables that have no rake - zero. But they are actually less than 1/2 cents - with the current bitcoin valuation.

 

[1player1]

Some time ago I made this table using the rake at Pokerstars.
Figures might be different today.

Note that max rake is 15 blinds for 1/2c and only 0,5 blind for 3/6 USD

Interesting - is'nt it?
Stakes BB % Rake Max Rake Rake/blinds Pot/maxrake cash 0,01/0,02 0,02 3,5 0,3 15,00 8,57 cash 0,02/0,05 0,05 4,15 1 20,00 28,57 cash 0,05/0,10 0,1 4,5 1,5 15,00 42,86 cash 0,08/0,16 0,16 4,5 1,5 9,38 42,86 cash 0,10/0,25 0,25 4,5 2 8,00 57,14 cash 0,25/0,50 0,5 5 2 4,00 57,14 cash 0,50/1 1 5 2,5 2,50 71,43 cash 1/2 2 5 2,75 1,38 78,57 cash 2/4 4 5 3 0,75 85,71 cash 2,5/5 5 5 3 0,60 85,71 cash 3/6 6 5 3 0,50 85,71

 

[1player1]

 

[LevySystem]

View attachment 270741

What does rake/blind stand for in this chart?
If rake in BB: how does it is more in nl5 than nl10? That would make no sense...

 

[1player1]

What does rake/blind stand for in this chart?
If rake in BB: how does it is more in nl5 than nl10? That would make no sense...

Rake/Blinds is max. rake converted to big blinds

 

[c0rnBr34d]

What does rake/blind stand for in this chart?
If rake in BB: how does it is more in nl5 than nl10? That would make no sense...

This is a very important consideration. It basically asks the question: If we hit max rake in a pot, how many big blinds will be removed from the pot as rake? It is not the absolute dollar amount being removed, it is the amount in terms of BB.

While larger pots may be more rare. Losing 15 BB in one hand is absolutely HUGE compared to losing 0.5 BB to rake in a single hand in a large pot where rake is capped (max). One of those pots every 200 hands would decrease your win rate by 7.25 BB / 100 for example.

 

[LevySystem]

This is a very important consideration. It basically asks the question: If we hit max rake in a pot, how many big blinds will be removed from the pot as rake?

While larger pots may be more rare. Losing 15 BB in one hand is absolutely HUGE compared to losing 0.5 BB to rake in a single hand in a large pot where rake is capped (max). One of those pots every 200 hands would decrease your win rate by 7 BB / 100 for example.

Sure but that only apllies if we play deep. 400bb pot would be 18bb if we take 4.5% rake. I dont play deep at all. It increases variance wich i think is a bad thing unless we are at a level were we crush the field technically and mentally. Wich i dont give myself yet. Guess the thing to take away is we should play deeper than 200bb if possible, to maximze our EV.

Another reason i can see why we pay more rake at nl5+ is that players get better, thus we play more hands postflop vs more regulars wich then increases rake and those small pots add up over time. Therefore we dont pay that much rake playing big pots, the small ones make up a large quantaty of the rake we pay.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

Sure but that only apllies if we play deep. 400bb pot would be 18bb if we take 4.5% rake. I dont play deep at all. It increases variance wich i think is a bad thing unless we are at a level were we crush the field technically and mentally. Wich i dont give myself yet. Guess the thing to take away is we should play deeper than 200bb if possible, to maximze our EV.

Another reason i can see why we pay more rake at nl5+ is that players get better, thus we play more hands postflop vs more regulars wich then increases rake and those small pots add up over time. Therefore we dont pay that much rake playing big pots, the small ones make up a large quantaty of the rake we pay.

You're focusing too much on the worst case scenario here. Although it will be more rare to play a max rake pot it will still happen on occasion. Pots can also go multi way and not just heads up so even if you aren't playing super deep you can win a big pot. But far, far before we get to the max rake cap. We are still paying lots and lots of extra BB in rake. Let's look at 3 super simple rake scenarios that are probably VERY common.

Scenario 1: One street of value from SB defend.
Hero raises late position to 3 BB. Only SB calls to defend. Hero bets 1/2 pot OTF. SB calls. Hero bets 2/3 pot OTT, V folds. Total pot = 7 pre + 7 flop = 14.
Rake = 14 * 0.045 = 0.63 BB. So every hand like this you are paying an extra 0.13 BB vs the 3/6 game with a 0.5 BB cap. A thousand hands later that's 130 BB or 1.3 buy ins of extra rake. If you're putting in any real volume even the smaller hands are going to make a difference over time. The big pots just hit MUCH harder and are disgusting to think about.

Scenario 2: Raising over one limper and getting 2 callers pre but taking it down on the flop.
EP limp, Hero raises 4 BB, 2 callers. 12-15 BB pot already depending on if the blinds were the callers. Even if everyone folds to the cbet see above for extra rake paid.

Scenario 3: Two streets of value.
UTG raise 3 BB, Hero calls to set mine in position with small pair. We flop a set and call a 1/2 pot cbet on a dry board. We raise over a pot sized turn bet when a flush draw comes in and V folds. Pot = 7.5 pre + 7.5 flop + 30 turn = 45 BB
Rake = 45 * 0.045 = 2.025 BB
This is an extra 1.525 BB paid every time we go two streets compared to the 0.5 BB cap... How fast is that going to add up?

 

[LevySystem]

You're focusing too much on the worst case scenario here. Although it will be more rare to play a max rake pot it will still happen on occasion. Pots can also go multi way and not just heads up so even if you aren't playing super deep you can win a big pot. But far, far before we get to the max rake cap. We are still paying lots and lots of extra BB in rake. Let's look at 3 super simple rake scenarios that are probably VERY common.
[...]
How fast is that going to add up?

Completely on your side here. The small pots matter. I had the impression you were saying the Rakecap is bad, wich i dont see and agree with fundiver. The rake itself is whats hurting the winrate, the cap is (never) reached.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

Completely on your side here. The small pots matter. I had the impression you were saying the Rakecap is bad, wich i dont see and agree with fundiver. The rake itself is whats hurting the winrate, the cap is (never) reached.

I'm not sure we agree after all. I AM saying the cap is bad. I come from live poker so I don't mind the 5% rake as I'm used to 10% lol. But the cap in proportion to BBs is what bothers me. In my very limited 2NL online DB I hit the rake cap about every 400 hands over 6.5k hands (before I moved up). That is rare but it is far from never. But max rake is only the worst case scenario. If we look at all the pots where 10 BB or more was raked from the pot it's more often than every 100 hands. So you get the point. All of the pots where more than 0.5 BB are removed are brutal in the long run and add up a ton.

 

[LevySystem]

I'm not sure we agree after all. I AM saying the cap is bad. I come from live poker so I don't mind the 5% rake as I'm used to 10% lol. But the cap in proportion to BBs is what bothers me. In my very limited 2NL online DB I hit the rake cap about every 400 hands over 6.5k hands (before I moved up). That is rare but it is far from never. But max rake is only the worst case scenario. If we look at all the pots where 10 BB or more was raked from the pot it's more often than every 100 hands. So you get the point. All of the pots where more than 0.5 BB are removed are brutal in the long run and add up a ton.

Allright I will try to clarify my point.

The rake online is smaller by itself, but also the edges are thinner. If you beat microsstakes online on known sites than you should have no trouble crushing your local casino. It all depends on how big your edge is.

So we agree on the fact that for the rakecap to be reached we need play deep right? (2players*222bb/100*4.5=19.98 bb rakecap) therefore to pay the maximum amount of blinds in rake. So unless we play deeper than 222bb in a headsup pot we will allways pay 4.5% -> the maximum amount.
In that sense I think we are talking past each other. (Can you say that in english? )

So the factor that decides here is not the rakecap (we essentially allways will pay 4.5%) but the amount of pots we play postflop. Now if we play in a environment we're we face a lot of regulars we have a problem because while maybe having an edge over them let's say 2bb that edge is not big enough to generate enough profit to beat the rake. Obviously it all sums up, because we will also play those guys were we have edges of 30bb+. So beating them with 2bb is a bonus. But the money comes from fish in the end.

So we need to decrease the amount of pots we play postflop.

Thus I am concluding in following points to maximize our EV (4.5% rake):
- Play deeper than 222bb
- Don't play regulars
- Play tighter

 

[quant1986]

I think you can shop around and I find PS/888 are both beatable, especially regular tables

Sites like Unibet offer very low rake structure for microstakes , e.g. 1% for NL4 .

 

[c0rnBr34d]

I think you can shop around and I find PS/888 are both beatable, especially regular tables

Sites like Unibet offer very low rake structure for microstakes , e.g. 1% for NL4 .

LOL but the Unibet rake cap you reference for 4NL is 25 BB. That is my whole point. Think how they can get away with charging 1/5 th of the rake percentage of other sites. It's because increasing the rake cap makes up for it. Whether or not the rake is beatable is a different discussion but when discussing if it's too high or too low I think cap has more impact than percentage although both are important and need to be looked at together.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

I think you can shop around and I find PS/888 are both beatable, especially regular tables

Sites like Unibet offer very low rake structure for microstakes , e.g. 1% for NL4 .

LOL but the Unibet rake cap you reference for 4NL is 25 BB. That is my whole point. Think how they can get away with charging 1/5 th of the rake percentage of other sites. It's because increasing the rake cap makes up for it. Whether or not the rake is beatable is a different discussion but when discussing if it's too high or too low I think cap has more impact than percentage although both are important and need to be looked at together.

Ok I'm wrong on this one. This 1% rake is still super low even with the ridiculous cap since you can never really come close to maxing it out.

 

[caracaski220]

caracaski220

I never play this level cash. However if it is as you say I would think that rake is to high percentage wise.

 

[c0rnBr34d]

So we agree on the fact that for the rakecap to be reached we need play deep right? (2players*222bb/100*4.5=19.98 bb rakecap) therefore to pay the maximum amount of blinds in rake. So unless we play deeper than 222bb in a headsup pot we will allways pay 4.5% -> the maximum amount.
In that sense I think we are talking past each other. (Can you say that in english? )

So the factor that decides here is not the rakecap (we essentially allways will pay 4.5%) but the amount of pots we play postflop. Now if we play in a environment we're we face a lot of regulars we have a problem because while maybe having an edge over them let's say 2bb that edge is not big enough to generate enough profit to beat the rake. Obviously it all sums up, because we will also play those guys were we have edges of 30bb+. So beating them with 2bb is a bonus. But the money comes from fish in the end.

So we need to decrease the amount of pots we play postflop.

Thus I am concluding in following points to maximize our EV (4.5% rake):
- Play deeper than 222bb
- Don't play regulars
- Play tighter

I am really trying to address your thoughts and didn't think I was talking past you at all. Please let me know what I ignored so I can address it. I believe that I understood and simply disagreed with your assessment that the cap isn't that important since it wont be hit that often. We don't HAVE to be super deep to hit the cap either. Your example is only a heads up pot. The more multi way the pot is the easier it is to hit the cap. But that is beside the point. Way before you get to even 2/3 of the cap you're getting crushed already. I thought I showed that already in examples but it seems to have been dismissed as the 4.5% being the only issue.

I initially believed that the cap may be more important than the percentage but I suppose they are fairly equal. I've also been using data to show why I think that way so I'll continue down that path. I had never heard of sites charging 1% rake before today so that moves the needle some in my opinion. Bottom line though, both cap and rate both matter a lot. You cannot discount either.

I'll go back to my 6.5k sample of 2NL hands at 5% rake with 15 BB cap for comparison. I exported all the hands and ran some calculations in excel.
I payed 6540 BB in rake under the 4.5% with a 15 BB cap.
Here's how that compares to other rates and caps if I use the same 6.5k hand sample, no flop no drop.
4.5% rate 0.5 BB cap = 1848 BB
1.0% rate 15 BB cap = 2424 BB
This already shows that the industry low BB cap saves more rake than the industry low percentage. So you can't just say "it's the 4.5%, the cap doesn't matter". They both matter. That is not me talking past you.

Here are some other scenarios for fun
4.5% rate 2 BB cap = 3773 BB
4.5% rate 5 BB cap = 5349 BB
4.5% rate 10 BB cap = 6393 BB
4.5% rate 20 BB cap = 6580 BB
2.5% rate 20 BB cap = 4083 BB
3.5% rate 20 BB cap = 5314 BB

Also, I don't "try" to play deep or not play deep. I buy in 100 BB and play a normal length session. Making an effort to leave the table to keep from getting too deep or buy in short can both limit your win rate. Is it worth it to avoid a possible increased rake amount? I don't think so. If you aren't good playing deep then sure, get up. But otherwise you could be doing more harm than good. Also there were 3 pots in the sample that exceeded a 25 BB cap which is even larger than the 20 BB cap you are saying that will never be hit.

Edited to add: 0.5 BB cap is not the industry low rake cap. If you play higher limits there are 0.3 and 0.175 rake caps posted for really big games. A 2/5 or 3/6 game isn't too crazy big that we can never imagine playing a session at. And they are already in that 0.6 or 0.5 range so I previously stopped there for best rake caps even though better caps are posted for bigger games that most of us will never play. So if we ran calculations with caps that small we would see huge savings in rake. Also these calculations are heavily biased since all the tiny sub penny rakes round up to 0.5 BB for 2NL where in a larger game they would round up to a much smaller amount in terms of BB.