Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
This graph is statistics for the TOP 50 players in each stake-level for Stars..
Basically - it shows as a ratio of profit vs rake paid... (FWIW: The reason it the high stakes players do so much better is because of capped rake.. Ironically, the edges at those stakes are actually smaller (winrates are a lot smaller) so in theory high stakes players should be paying the higher percent of rake.
Anyway - it really shows just how damaging the current system of rake is - and goes a long way in explaining how hard online poker is to beat (remember, these are the top 50 for each stake).
Also - I really hope it illustrates once and for all the importance of all kinds of rakeback (bonuses, rb, VIP rewards, etc).
Joined: Oct '09
Location: Spain
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 2851
Interesting graph, to say the least. Like you say, it really shows how important rake etc. is in the grand scheme of things. Wow!
Only have that deal on PKR, and not much time to play at all there. MTT take too long for me right now, and SnG's are practically non-existent. Maybe after the summer?
Joined: Aug '11
Location: Portugal
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 232
High stakes players .. supernova for example have lots of advantages tho in rakeback and bonus etc.
Anyways i almost stop playing cash games because yes.. rake is hard to beat to make that profit .. online poker seems designed to be played agressively .. i guess that's the onl yway to make very well..
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
Also the higher the stakes the more pre-flop play gets better, so no flop no drop helps. Micros have far too many fish who make the rake a killer. But when you have a RB deal the graph changes a lot. 30% on nl10 would give you the same as nl400, there abouts. So winnings go from 35% to around to 55%
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by B1gfoot: Also the higher the stakes the more pre-flop play gets better, so no flop no drop helps.
Yeah - that's true. I would say a combination of capped rake (mostly this), as you said - less flops and also quite often micro stakes have a higher % of rake, PKR for example charges 10% for <nl25 and 5% for nl25+
Joined: May '08
Location: Lithuania
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 10090
Posted by BeMyATMplz:
Posted by B1gfoot: Conclusion...get RB..and don't play stars.
Just play enough volume to be Platin+ (it really is not too hard) and you get decent RB..
correct, but only if you play mid stakes- for micro limit players to reach platinum would mean to play something like 20+ tables for 10 hours a day and coupled with the variance which is not very small at micro limits- you get the picture of the task micro players have in front of them if they want to get out of the rat race
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Germany
Age: 31 (M)
Posts: 1859
Posted by pochui:
Posted by BeMyATMplz:
Posted by B1gfoot: Conclusion...get RB..and don't play stars.
Just play enough volume to be Platin+ (it really is not too hard) and you get decent RB..
correct, but only if you play mid stakes- for micro limit players to reach platinum would mean to play something like 20+ tables for 10 hours a day and coupled with the variance which is not very small at micro limits- you get the picture of the task micro players have in front of them if they want to get out of the rat race
It doesnt have to be midstakes necessarily.. If you play $7 SNGs for example you have to average about 85 games per day,if you have solid grinding abilities and 3-4 hours per day (on average) to grind then that's a very easy task
Yeah definetly, as I always say, most average winning players would normally win what they rake and that would be their profit That's why I never invested much in online poker, I try to win big without risking much. Live cash games are so much more fun and you pay no rake except the tip you give to the dealer
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Canada
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 1490
There's actually a graph floating around somewhere on the interweb, showing what % of the population of online poker players fall into each of these categories:
Losing players Winning players Breakeven players
Obviously losing players comprise the majority of players, while the next biggest % is comprised of breakeven players. Only around 1% of players are winning players.
Point is, rake is what sets aside breakeven players from winning players. Breakeven players WOULD be winners if not for the rake, and so a good rakeback deal is pretty much neccessary for any serious player.
God I miss the days of FT and my 27% rakeback Playing on stars, the rake is really hard to beat, and their VIP system totally sucks unless you're in the Supernova tier. Problem is, since they are the top room online, they can get away with charging ridiculous rake, since they know players will still play there.
IMO, rake doesn't need to be nearly as high as it does for online poker. Since they don't have to pay dealers, and since realistically it doesn't take a lot of server resources to run their client, their only real overhead is paying their support staff, and of course buying their executives fancy cars
This is one of the reasons why I think regulation would be a good thing, because it will help to pull rake in check, and make it fairer for everyone who plays.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Germany
Age: 31 (M)
Posts: 1859
Posted by retribution: Playing on stars, the rake is really hard to beat, and their VIP system totally sucks unless you're in the Supernova tier. Problem is, since they are the top room online, they can get away with charging ridiculous rake, since they know players will still play there.
IMO, rake doesn't need to be nearly as high as it does for online poker. Since they don't have to pay dealers, and since realistically it doesn't take a lot of server resources to run their client, their only real overhead is paying their support staff, and of course buying their executives fancy cars
This is one of the reasons why I think regulation would be a good thing, because it will help to pull rake in check, and make it fairer for everyone who plays.
In terms of Rake (esp. in SNGs) stars is one of if not the best of all rooms. You dont need Supernova to have high rakeback,I'm Platin (getting supernova later this year but yeah) and even with Platin I'm getting about 30% RB overall. With Supernova it'll be about 45%. The rake isnt hard to beat at all..it depends on your kind of game of course,but every format is possible to beat up until midstakes,PRE RAKEBACK.
I mean look at IPoker sites. Sure,you can easily get a 40% RB deal,but what does that help if you cant beat the micro SNGs pre rakeback because they have 20% Rake? Especially superturbos/DoNs will be impossible to beat pre RB that way.
Obviously if you dont have decent grinding skills and can only play like 6 tables max,stars should probably not be your choice,because then I'd agree that the RB you get as silverstar or something sucks,but if you are a decent grinder who can play 16+ tables (really not hard with the multitabling-friendly software stars has) you can make the RB alone worth your grind.
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Canada
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 1490
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by TheMachineQC: Live cash games are so much more fun and you pay no rake except the tip you give to the dealer
Serious? All the live games here are raked just as hard as online.. Worse in fact, in a lot of cases!
This. I've never heard of a single place that doesn't charge rake. Unless of course you're playing a home game with friends.
As for stars, well the rake isn't TERRIBLE, but it's not great either. Normal SNGS are 16% and Turbos are 12%. Not sure about the hypers off the top of my head, but I think it's 10%. Mind you, party poker charged 20% across the board, which is why I left that site and went back to stars.
I was playing zoom there and beating the rake, but moved back to playing the turbos since they are more profitable. Still, 16% rake isn't great either, and you're majority of good players will barely beat the rake, or even lose a little if they don't use their points wisely.
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Canada
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 1490
Posted by pochui:
Posted by BeMyATMplz:
Posted by B1gfoot: Conclusion...get RB..and don't play stars.
Just play enough volume to be Platin+ (it really is not too hard) and you get decent RB..
correct, but only if you play mid stakes- for micro limit players to reach platinum would mean to play something like 20+ tables for 10 hours a day and coupled with the variance which is not very small at micro limits- you get the picture of the task micro players have in front of them if they want to get out of the rat race
This is why it's so freaking hard to start a roll from next to nothing, and grind up to the point where you CAN move to low/mid stakes. The micros are a well designed pit, to keep most players stuck in the micros loop pretty much forever. Even if you beat the rake, it's usually not for more than a few BB/100, or around 10% roi if you play sngs.
Based on that, and variance, it's incredibly difficult to build an adequate roll, unless you completely disregard bankroll management, which is an invitation for failure itself.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by retribution:
Posted by pochui:
Posted by BeMyATMplz:
Posted by B1gfoot: Conclusion...get RB..and don't play stars.
Just play enough volume to be Platin+ (it really is not too hard) and you get decent RB..
correct, but only if you play mid stakes- for micro limit players to reach platinum would mean to play something like 20+ tables for 10 hours a day and coupled with the variance which is not very small at micro limits- you get the picture of the task micro players have in front of them if they want to get out of the rat race
This is why it's so freaking hard to start a roll from next to nothing, and grind up to the point where you CAN move to low/mid stakes. The micros are a well designed pit, to keep most players stuck in the micros loop pretty much forever. Even if you beat the rake, it's usually not for more than a few BB/100, or around 10% roi if you play sngs.
Based on that, and variance, it's incredibly difficult to build an adequate roll, unless you completely disregard bankroll management, which is an invitation for failure itself.
This is completely true - this is why I always get frustrated with rigtards - they don't realise - the RNG doesn't need to be 'fixed' against them - the odds are already stacked high against them.
IMHO - once you're done fucking around and learning the ropes - you're far better off depositing a few hundred and playing the small stakes games instead of micros (get away from the ultra-high micro rake). The difference in ring games of small stakes vs micros is usually 5% rake vs 10% rake on each pot - the difference that makes is fucking huge.
Likewise, with SNGs you're probably talking about 10% rake instead of 15%,20% or even 25% rake.
Joined: May '08
Location: Netherlands
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 6197
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by retribution:
Posted by pochui:
Posted by BeMyATMplz:
Posted by B1gfoot: Conclusion...get RB..and don't play stars.
Just play enough volume to be Platin+ (it really is not too hard) and you get decent RB..
correct, but only if you play mid stakes- for micro limit players to reach platinum would mean to play something like 20+ tables for 10 hours a day and coupled with the variance which is not very small at micro limits- you get the picture of the task micro players have in front of them if they want to get out of the rat race
This is why it's so freaking hard to start a roll from next to nothing, and grind up to the point where you CAN move to low/mid stakes. The micros are a well designed pit, to keep most players stuck in the micros loop pretty much forever. Even if you beat the rake, it's usually not for more than a few BB/100, or around 10% roi if you play sngs.
Based on that, and variance, it's incredibly difficult to build an adequate roll, unless you completely disregard bankroll management, which is an invitation for failure itself.
This is completely true - this is why I always get frustrated with rigtards - they don't realise - the RNG doesn't need to be 'fixed' against them - the odds are already stacked high against them.
IMHO - once you're done fucking around and learning the ropes - you're far better off depositing a few hundred and playing the small stakes games instead of micros (get away from the ultra-high micro rake). The difference in ring games of small stakes vs micros is usually 5% rake vs 10% rake on each pot - the difference that makes is fucking huge.
Likewise, with SNGs you're probably talking about 10% rake instead of 15%,20% or even 25% rake.
Well, imo its not that hard playing just TAG to build a roll from nothing or allmost nothing. There are enough pokerrooms which offer normal rake for micro SNG/MTT or CASH (10% or lower) Also just ubermulti intresting freerolls with just playing TAG, with TAG you dont play many hands so must be easy to play 9+ even 12+ Build a roll upto $100 in first month must be very doable, roll $1000 after 6 months is also very doable.
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Canada
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 1490
Posted by doomdy:
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by retribution:
Posted by pochui:
Posted by BeMyATMplz:
Posted by B1gfoot: Conclusion...get RB..and don't play stars.
Just play enough volume to be Platin+ (it really is not too hard) and you get decent RB..
correct, but only if you play mid stakes- for micro limit players to reach platinum would mean to play something like 20+ tables for 10 hours a day and coupled with the variance which is not very small at micro limits- you get the picture of the task micro players have in front of them if they want to get out of the rat race
This is why it's so freaking hard to start a roll from next to nothing, and grind up to the point where you CAN move to low/mid stakes. The micros are a well designed pit, to keep most players stuck in the micros loop pretty much forever. Even if you beat the rake, it's usually not for more than a few BB/100, or around 10% roi if you play sngs.
Based on that, and variance, it's incredibly difficult to build an adequate roll, unless you completely disregard bankroll management, which is an invitation for failure itself.
This is completely true - this is why I always get frustrated with rigtards - they don't realise - the RNG doesn't need to be 'fixed' against them - the odds are already stacked high against them.
IMHO - once you're done fucking around and learning the ropes - you're far better off depositing a few hundred and playing the small stakes games instead of micros (get away from the ultra-high micro rake). The difference in ring games of small stakes vs micros is usually 5% rake vs 10% rake on each pot - the difference that makes is fucking huge.
Likewise, with SNGs you're probably talking about 10% rake instead of 15%,20% or even 25% rake.
Well, imo its not that hard playing just TAG to build a roll from nothing or allmost nothing. There are enough pokerrooms which offer normal rake for micro SNG/MTT or CASH (10% or lower) Also just ubermulti intresting freerolls with just playing TAG, with TAG you dont play many hands so must be easy to play 9+ even 12+ Build a roll upto $100 in first month must be very doable, roll $1000 after 6 months is also very doable.
Joined: May '08
Location: Netherlands
Age: 53 (M)
Posts: 6197
Posted by retribution:
Posted by doomdy:
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by retribution:
Posted by pochui:
Posted by BeMyATMplz:
Posted by B1gfoot: Conclusion...get RB..and don't play stars.
Just play enough volume to be Platin+ (it really is not too hard) and you get decent RB..
correct, but only if you play mid stakes- for micro limit players to reach platinum would mean to play something like 20+ tables for 10 hours a day and coupled with the variance which is not very small at micro limits- you get the picture of the task micro players have in front of them if they want to get out of the rat race
This is why it's so freaking hard to start a roll from next to nothing, and grind up to the point where you CAN move to low/mid stakes. The micros are a well designed pit, to keep most players stuck in the micros loop pretty much forever. Even if you beat the rake, it's usually not for more than a few BB/100, or around 10% roi if you play sngs.
Based on that, and variance, it's incredibly difficult to build an adequate roll, unless you completely disregard bankroll management, which is an invitation for failure itself.
This is completely true - this is why I always get frustrated with rigtards - they don't realise - the RNG doesn't need to be 'fixed' against them - the odds are already stacked high against them.
IMHO - once you're done fucking around and learning the ropes - you're far better off depositing a few hundred and playing the small stakes games instead of micros (get away from the ultra-high micro rake). The difference in ring games of small stakes vs micros is usually 5% rake vs 10% rake on each pot - the difference that makes is fucking huge.
Likewise, with SNGs you're probably talking about 10% rake instead of 15%,20% or even 25% rake.
Well, imo its not that hard playing just TAG to build a roll from nothing or allmost nothing. There are enough pokerrooms which offer normal rake for micro SNG/MTT or CASH (10% or lower) Also just ubermulti intresting freerolls with just playing TAG, with TAG you dont play many hands so must be easy to play 9+ even 12+ Build a roll upto $100 in first month must be very doable, roll $1000 after 6 months is also very doable.
and coupled with the variance which is not very small at micro limits- you get the picture of the task micro players have in front of them if they want to get out of the rat race 
Playing on stars, the rake is really hard to beat, and their 
