FTP and PS rakeback

Yo guys, i was calculating how much one pay for rake in both rooms, i was shocked to see that @ nl50 you pay 35$/1000 hands on PS and 48.32$/1000 hands on FTP, if you consider you have 27% rakeback on FTP it goes down to 35.28$/1000 hands according to PT...

So even with rakeback, FTP is barely taking as much rake as PS and on top of that, FTP vpps store sucks hairy dicks while PS one is awesome. Am i making a mistake here or FTP doesn't worth playing even with RB ? At what stakes the 27% RB really kicks in significantly ? Anyone did the calculation and don't mind to share the numbers ?

Thanks

I was just wondering about this.. more info please!

Found this link which explain how PS bonuses/RB works: http://www.flopturnriver.com/PokerStars-Rakeback.php

If we do the math, after RB, you pay the same rake on both sites (nl50 it is). But you have to consider the PS RB with bonuses which is 20% at Platinum, PS has more players (twice more than FTP) meaning more tables and larger tournaments that you can play using fpps, not mentioning the freerolls running each weeks/months for vip members.

Until supernova, other sites that do have rakeback tend to offer a better deal than Stars. If you are supernova, however, there are very few places that can offer you better value than stars.

what's the source of that?? your PT database??

but does PT calculate rake precisely on both sites?

how big is your sample?

im pretty sure you can easily figure this out by just looking at break points of where they differentiate in rake taken.

IE when they start raking pots (what size pot) limitations for rake based on the stake and what % they rake

i think you can make a formula to figure out at which limits what sites are best or whatever

The numbers i give is from my own db, around 50k hands sample for both sites. Seems i can't find any serious thread about rakeback even on 2+2, it's very nebulous but as far as i can see, PS looks like to be slightly better at nl50. No clue about higher stakes tho, FTP seems to rape the low stakes grinder rake wise with brutality.

Im gonna see if i can find more stuff, maybe my 50k sample is not big enough to be relevant.

edit: Okay, my calculation should be on a 50k hands sample WITH the same winning rate on both site and barely the same average size pots while 5 handed.

The only difference at nl50 is that FTP takes up to 3$ when 5 players play a hand while PS take 2$. 5% rake for each hand (so you pay more rake if its 5 handed and you win pots superior than 40$).

When im back from work, i'll do some math and see what i can get from that, i'll do the same for nl100.

On July 21 2008 05:03 Sheitan wrote: ...FTP seems to rape the low stakes grinder rake wise with brutality...

Which especially holds true for NL10 games: 10% rake %$!@#~!#!&*

with ftp riggedness, it's like 40% rake on your winrate. so yes, ftp is goot

and lol at the thought that playing on FTP makes you play better poker, coz then youll be flatting k7 suited oop against a 3bet in no time coz its really standard to flop something like 77x really

I was thinking of moving to FTP but it seems a bit hassling plus everyone says it's rigged lawl.

Does anyone know how much VPPs you need to get to clear the $4000 bonus for 250k FPPs on Stars?

prolly 20k

-Working on it-

It will be interesting to analize how the rake is taken in each site and make comparisons

I saw that FT and stars takes in increments of 0.05 for NL and PL games, while party doest it cent by cent

Between stars and FT, the difference is made in the 5 handed games and the 10% rake at microstakes

Its 28k base FPPs/VPPs for the 4k bonus. I just bought a $1500 one if I had known about the 4k one I would of got that. Damn it.

since when that 4k bonus does exist ?
looks cool