Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Quote Originally Posted by Setzy
Sample size for 100NL FR is much larger than 200NL FR...so it's actually better to play 100NL FR for the $/hr, or are the numbers skewed a bit?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking but I'll try to answer. The sample sizes given for different stakes isn't really relevant to anything dealing with these bonuses. The only reason there's different sample sizes is because the person who made the chart (who isn't me) used those size samples. I'm not even sure if all of the hands used were his own and I actually don't know the thread right off hand that the chart came from at 2+2.

So my attempt to give you an answer to your question, granted I'm not completely sure what you're asking, is that 100NL FR doesn't offer a better $/hr in terms of the bonuses.
Maybe I'M reading it wrong, but on each line for rakeback %, under NL100 the Gold rakeback % is 14.88 and NL200 is 14.14%. Platinum rakeback % is 21.21% at NL100 and 20.15% for NL200. Supernova rakeback % is 34.23 for NL100 and 32.55% for NL200.

Doesn't higher rakeback % mean that you are getting more money for your rake back? (May have worded previous post wrong)