My Stats: Something wrong with the amount of rake?

[Pingviini]

I have heard that even 20bb/100 is a good amount. Considering that, my bb/100 should be enough but the rake seems huge. Am I missing something? The amount of hands isnt exactly huge but..

Anyways, here is some stats starting from the beginning of February. I would appreciate your comments greatly. All the hands are from ep/pp and stats are from PT v 2.05.02.


NL25
Hands : 658
BB/100 : 41.15
winnings : $135.39
Rake : $111.55
VP$IP : 16.41
Won% WSF: 38.24%
PFR% : 5.62%
Aggr. factor w/o PF : 2.81

NL50
Hands : 4991
BB/100 35.96
winnings : $1794.92
Rake : $1832.95 !!!!!!!!
VP$IP : 26.39
Won$ WSF % : 38.87
PFR% : 10.8%
Aggr. factor w/o PF : 3.25

NL100
Hands : 1273
BB/100 : 4.76
winnings: $121.15
Rake : $526.28 !!!
VP$IP : 22.15
Won% WSF : 31.6
PFR% : 9.51
Aggr. factor w/o PF : 3.57

[Cocco_Bill]

something is clearly wrong there, my rake is nowhere near those figures

[wobbler]

I think you are doing great!

don't know about the rake though, are you playing short handed? 6max? I would expect you would pay more rake there than in a full game.

[Pingviini]

I forgot to mention that all the stats are from 10max. Didnt want 6max to mix things up here..

[Cocco_Bill]

I think you are doing great!

don't know about the rake though, are you playing short handed? 6max? I would expect you would pay more rake there than in a full game.

To put it in perspective, his rake is more than 5X what I payed with that number of hands at 50NL.

Your results are fantastic, but its to few hands to decide if its just a nice rush or if you really are an amazing player!

[JeffreyGB]

Dude, 20bb/100 isn't just good, it's awesome. 5bb/100 is considered good. From these stats, you're destroying the game, assuming it's not just upward variance from a great run.

I have no explanation for your rake figures. That's crazy. With similar numbers of hands in each category, I've got on the order of $700 in rake TOTAL.

[Cocco_Bill]

maybe you are looking at the total table rake..

[wobbler]

maybe the rake is the TOTAL rake contributed by all players on the table, not just HIS rake

considering nl50:
rake/hand = $1833/4991 = $0.367/hand
if rake=5% then
average pot per hand = $0.365/0.05 = $7.3 which seems possible
if this was only HIS contribution to the rake, the average pot size would be 10x this = $73 which is much too high for nl50

[wobbler]

maybe you are looking at the total table rake..

I missed your post while typing mine

[Pingviini]

The problem is that I was using the old version of poker tracker, I just noticed that the biggest rake was $293 in a $333 pot and there is also a number of negative rakes. When I get more answers from the PT forums I will post them here.

[Izenra]

Maybe it's is the rake the whole table did. If you look at Nl50, 1832 $, it may be for 10 player. If you divide 1832/10, you end up with a rake of 183.2, which is realistic, I think

edit: Oops I think someone realises that too :<--- Woobler

[Pingviini]

I asked this in the PT forums and here are the results:

Answer: Go to the Game Notes tab and click the "Select All" button. Now, sort the top data section by rake so the highest appears at the top. Do you have any that are greater than $3? If so, you may have loaded these hands using an older version of PT - Party changed their hand history format a while back and was causing some high and even some negative rake amounts, this could explain the problem.

ME: YES, biggest rake was $293 in a $333 pot!! I have now downloaded the patch but is there any way to fix this problem to see the real stats?
EDIT: Do you know if there is anything else wrong with the stats PT has given me besides the rake?

Answer: You need to delete an reimport the hands. On the Game Notes tab, click the Export button to export all these hands to text files. Then use the Utilities/Database Maintenance and Options window to purge all these sessions and then use the File/Import Hand Histories/Tournament Summaries - Select Files To Import button to import the files you exported in the first step.