| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Sun, 30 Mar 2008, 2:36pm Post subject: 6m vs FR, rake? |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 770
WPP: 109
Location: Watching spoon stroke his own ego
|
|
I've been bouncing back and forth between 6m and FR. It's mainly because I've been running bad, but it's forcing me to do a lot of thinking about the pros and cons of both.
I had been meaning to check the difference in rake, since we play more hands(vp$ip, not /hr) in 6m. At 25nl, I pay $22/1k hands in FR and $27/1k hands at 6max. This is over 19k and 16k sample sets respectively. Does anyone have any better samples to back these up?
At that rate, I'm losing an extra 1ptbb/100 at 6max vs. FR! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 30 Mar 2008, 3:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 895
WPP: 64
Location: bluffing scare cards
|
|
| Its only cause you're going to be playing more hands in 6max than full right cause the blinds come around faster. Pick one grind up a big bankroll and as you move up the rake becomes smaller and smaller compared to your winrate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 31 Mar 2008, 1:35am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 1575
WPP: 70
Location: the ether
|
|
if you're running better you pay more rake (the total rake is the rake taken from hands won, right?)
check average rake/pot for FR and divide by 10, do the same for SH and divide by 6. Are they different? if so, whatever - it doesn't matter!
Play the one you have a better earn-rate with! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 31 Mar 2008, 2:24am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 1717
WPP: 74
Location: Soon to be TDot
|
|
| ummmm can't we figure out the differences between the two tables using six's, nine's, hands played, and division signs? Or am I missing something here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 31 Mar 2008, 9:53am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 3504
WPP: 60
Location: TAGfishery
|
|
| BankItDrew wrote: | | ummmm can't we figure out the differences between the two tables using six's, nine's, hands played, and division signs? Or am I missing something here? |
you may be on to something... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 31 Mar 2008, 11:29am Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 770
WPP: 109
Location: Watching spoon stroke his own ego
|
|
Since the calculation is per hand, the 6s and 9s are irrelevant (or understood).
Since the rake caps out at higher limits I would assume that this becomes less and less relevant as you move up. Therefore, at micros, it's better to play FR, as you move up, it becomes more of a tactical choice. The issue is that I don't have any stats to back this up, because I'm only at 25nl. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 31 Mar 2008, 12:20pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 2755
WPP: 111
|
|
| You play from the button more in 6m, so it should offset the bigger rake. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 01 Apr 2008, 1:05pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 1103
WPP: 91
Location: KC, MO
|
|
| Only if you play the BU well, which I suspect our resident 14/10 TAGS may not be. You have to play position to a 1BB/100 advantage to offset the rake. Post flop skill becomes a factor that we need to measure, yes? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
