small stakes no limit hold â˜em exttorrent

So rake takes a somewhat lower 26 percent of his pre-rake profit.

He would then make about $54 per hour if he could play without a rake. Let's consider Tom Terrific again, Tom makes $40 per hour in $2/$5, slightly worse in BBs per hour than he earned playing $1/$2. But the average rake is much smaller in BBs or as a percentage of the average winning pot size. We can see that in those games the average rake is about one-third higher in terms of dollars. The right-most column in the table shows the stats for Vegas $2/$5 NLH. One possible solution to our rake problem is to move up in stakes. This clearly illustrates that we must be significantly better than average in order to overcome the rake. So Max must be much better than mediocre in just to break even. In that case, the average Vegas $1/$2 player loses nearly $10 per hour, or 5 big blinds per hour, entirely due to the rake.

Suppose the bell curve distribution of win rates for all NLH cash game players is symmetrical. So the impact rake has on our profit depends on how profitable we are.

His pre-rake profit would be $10 per hour and the rake tax takes all of it. Or we can consider Mediocre Max, a break-even player. His pre-rake profit would be $15 per hour and his rake tax would be about 67 percent, double Tom's tax rate. Now let's consider Solid Sam, a decent player making $5 per hour. So rake takes an incredible 33 percent from Tom's pre-rake profit, a big factor in his earn rate. He would then make about $30 per hour if he could play without a rake. Let's consider Tom Terrific, an extremely good player earning $20 per hour. Nevertheless, we can learn a lot about the impact rake has on our win rate by studying Mr. For example, a tight player will play fewer hands and probably win fewer pots per hour, so his equity rake is probably smaller. But individual players vary from this depending on their playing styles. Equity rake is the average rake the players paid per hour.

Small stakes no limit hold â˜em exttorrent