| Author |
Message |
letsgocaps
Pair
Joined: 06 Aug 2008
Posts: 24
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: Best tables on full tilt to earn rakeback |
 |
|
Hey Guys,
I have read how full tilt takes the rake, but I am still confused as to which is the best method to earn the most rakeback.
I usually play tourneys but now with rakeback it seems makes more sense to also play some ring games.
Do you guys have any suggestions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
suta
Flush
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 137
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cash games definately take more rake, therefor more rake back. But play what you want, dont worry about making $ off rakeback, just think of it as a bonus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Equity Abyss
Three of a Kind
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PLO tables have huge pots relative to max buy ins, and thus generate a ton of rake. It's better though to play whatever you're good at. Winning with no rakeback is better than losing without rakeback. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ricktheruler
Straight Flush
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Don't worry about how much rakeback you are getting. If you do, your game will suffer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BOYNAMEDSUE
Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 7928
Location: Isle of Tilt
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yup.
Stick to what you're good at, at the stakes you're currently playing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
letsgocaps
Pair
Joined: 06 Aug 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wasn't going to play in higher stakes than I am used to, but when I play ring games, I always switch from nl/pl/fl If one over time will earn me more rakeback than the other, it just makes more sense to play that one. so out of nl/pl/fl, what is the best to get more rakeback? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bizarroquinn
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 1522
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whichever game has the biggest average pots will earn you the most rakeback.
the best way to earn rakeback is to play a tight aggressive game, win few pots but win the big ones, dont gamble, let everyone else pay the rake. You all get the same FTP.
If you wanna grind it, and can play a short stack successfully, you can min buy in in the $NL 100 or 200 games, and you're going to make on average about $2.99 for every 100FTP you earn, assuming you have a 27% rakeback, playing on 9 max tables.
The formula for calculating your rakeback for cash games is fairly simple (I base it off of blocks of 100FTP)
Take 100FTP, divide it by the number of players in the game you play (Full ring = 9, 6 max would be 6, heads up would be 2)
Take that amount and multiply it by your rake back percentage 27% is used a lot so multiple your amount from about by 0.27
This is the rakeback you will earn for each 100 FTP earned.
For example I play 9 man, .50/$1 MAX $100 games.
I would take 100FTP divided by 9 which equals 11.1
Now I multiply my 11.1 times my rake back percentage, lets say I get 25% rakeback
11.1 Times 25% or (11.1 * 0.25) = $2.775, or $2.75 rake back for every 100 FTP earned.
Now this would be the minimum, if you're at a ring game where there are only 7 players seated and there's 9 seats available, you will earn slightly more. It's almost impossible to track because people join and leave all the time, but if you always make your calculations with the MAXIMUM players that can be seated at the table, you'll be always finding the MINIMUM rakeback you'll earn, and most likely you'll end up with a little more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bizarroquinn
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 1522
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another thing, I like to do is figure out how many hands at a specific limit earns you 100FTP, then you can figure out how much you earn per hand.
I 8-12 table the NL $100 games. I find that it takes me about 450-500 hands to earn 200FTP for iron man every day. This takes me about an hour when I multitable.
I would earn $5.99 in rake back for those 200 FTP. I divide the $5.99 by 500 hands and I earns about 1.19 cents per hand on average. Assuming I got 27% rakeback, which i dont and really really wish I did.
/me shakes fist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wayniac
Forum Pro
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 617
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ricktheruler wrote: |
| Don't worry about how much rakeback you are getting. If you do, your game will suffer. |
Agreed.
I don't understand why you'd be playing to maximize your rakeback, when you could be playing to maximize your profit and just get rakeback as a bonus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bizarroquinn
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 1522
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wayniac wrote: |
| ricktheruler wrote: |
| Don't worry about how much rakeback you are getting. If you do, your game will suffer. |
Agreed.
I don't understand why you'd be playing to maximize your rakeback, when you could be playing to maximize your profit and just get rakeback as a bonus. |
I'm likely to agree with your statement 99% of the time for 99% of all players wayne. However, there are some situations where the combination of bankroll, type of play, and hours played and make rakeback the difference between winning and losing overall.
For example, I know for a fact I see a player on the $NL 100 tables that only ever buys in for the table minimum $20. Now he plays an extremely tight short stack strategy. I think he is slightly profitable, or a break even player with this type of play, however, he's probably getting a hefty rakeback based on the hours he plays. I'm thinking at a minimum he's playing at an iron man level, and a 27% rakeback at Iron level is worth $150 at the minimum. Now if he plays 8-16 tables he's buying in for $20 each table, so he's got $160-320 on the tables at any given time.
A rakeback of $150 to a break even player is a big incentive to play bigger games with a short stack. Now I know most people cant play a short stack in a cash game well, or stand the variance, however, if the difference is playing 3 tables of $NL 100 at a full buying or 15 tables of NL $100 with min buyins, and getting rakeback of $150 a month at the minimum, plus the value of iron man medals and FTP points, you can see where this could be a good strategy.
I'm not endorsing it, but I'm just saying there are ways to maximize your bottom line, if you play the right type of game at the right levels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dlperrio
High Card
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Location: Indiana
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Limit cash games accumulate the most rake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
