I have a question for some of you guys who play cash games who have played on both stars and Full Tilt.

So, I am aware that for people who cannot play enough to reach at least Supernova status on stars you end up making less rakeback than you would on Full Tilt which has the flat 27%. I currently play on Stars and since I have been out of work I have had the time to play enough at the NL50 level to reach Platinum status every month.

I have two questions, One, what does platiunum rakeback work out to if I use all of the FPPs for Cash? Something like 16 - 18%? More?

Secondly, I will be starting a job next week so I wont be playing nearly as much. I also just reached my 40 buy ins and moved up to NL100. Assuming that I only have the time to play about 3000 - 5000 hands per week at NL100 at the Gold Level, Will be losing a really significant amount of money per hour by not playing on Full Tilt wt the 27% rakeback??

switch to FTP...the cash games r a lot softer also.

 

Originally Posted by plzjustHOLD

i disagree stars is alot softer

Yeah, if rakeback isnt a huge issue I prefer pokerstars. Mainly I like Stars because of the 50bb min tables, Probably almost 90% of the tables that I play on are the 50bb mins, I really cant stand constantly having to move tables because every table eventually ends up with 5 or 6 shortstacks at a time.

I also just feel comfortable right now at Stars, I've been having solid results, just moved to a higher buy in and just dont want to disrupt my groove right now.

That said, if I am losing something like $3 - $5 per hour in rakeback compared to Full Tilt (playing 500 hands an hour) then I'd consider making the move eventually, or at least putting some money on Tilt and making a gradual move.

The 50bb min thing though is really huge for me on Stars.

fwiw I 6 table 100nl on FTP and my rakeback works out to roughly $12/hr.

 

Originally Posted by oBOBCATu

fwiw I 6 table 100nl on FTP and my <a href='http://rakeback.pocketfives.com' target='blank'>rakeback</A> works out to roughly $12/hr.

On just 6 tables? That seems like a lot no? I've been playing 8 - 9 tables at NL50 until recently. My pokertracker shows my Total rakeback as $2700 over about 200 hours. If I got back 27% of that I would make back $730 over 200 hours or a little over $3.50 per hour playing NL50. Now that I am at NL100 I guess that would work out to a total of about $7 per hour. Based on those numbers I guess I will actually miss out on a little over $3 an hour at NL100 if I only earn 16% rakeback as opposed to 27%.

Is the rakeback statistic on pokertracker reliable? Because according to that I wont come anywhere near $12 an hour even playing 8-9 tables. I mean, if I am going to be missing out on something like $5-$6 per hour by playing on stars then I really will have to consider moving to Tkilt and just dealing with the mass of shortstackers.

 

Originally Posted by oBOBCATu

Do you play 6-max? That's what I play so maybe that's why yours is different. But I get raked about $40-45 an hour on 6 tables of 6-max 100nl, which works out to about $11-12 an hour. With <a href='http://rakeback.pocketfives.com' target='blank'>rakeback</A>, just maintaining a modest winrate at that level can translate into some decent coin.

I play Full Ring so that could be the reason, I average about 425 hands per hour playing 8-9 tables. My poker tracker shows me only paying about $11 an hour in rake at NL50 which will translate to $22 an hour at NL100 if I keep playing around 425 hands per hour. I feel like my rake stats must be wrong on pokertracker because if you are raking $45 an hr at 6 max, 6 tables I should be at least in the $35 an hour range at full ring 8 - 9 tables.

How many hands per hour do you average when you play 6 tables of 6 max? Does it come out to more than 425 per hour?

 

Originally Posted by oBOBCATu

I usually get about 600 hands per hour on 6 tables of 6-max. I'm pretty sure the reason my rake is so much more than yours is because when playing 6-max cash I'm pulling in many more pots than you are playing 9-man cash. You're only raked on the pots you actually win, and since I'm winning more pots then I'm also paying more rake.

If your goal is to actually be a good player and move up stakes, then I think it's much better to view <a href='http://rakeback.pocketfives.com' target='blank'>rakeback</A> as a bonus. So don't fret if you're not receiving as much in rakeback as you'd prefer. Just focus on beating whatever game you're in and treat rakeback as icing on the cake.

Okay, that makes sense, I suppose if you are playing about 25-30% more hands and pulling an additional 30% or higher number of pots per hand then that would explain the big difference. I could take my $22 per hr *1.3*1.3 = that would bring me to around $38 an hour so I guess tat explains it.

My main goal is obviously to get better and move up in stakes by winning money at the actual tables. I just wouldnt want to miss out on a significant amount of money per hour by playing on stars rakeback system.

I was reading through Stars site and apparently it seems like they also allow something like 6 - 7 reloads per year (with reload bonus) and that does not count against rakeback the way that Full Tilts Bonuss do so that could make up some of the difference if I am understanding that correctly.

Thanks for the help clarifying some of this stuff, I apparently have more trouble understanding rakeback than I do actual poker at this point but I definitely think I have a good feel now for the rakeback differences.

Odds are I'm just going to stay on Stars either way for the near future or at least until Tilt adds 50bb min tables.