I added a new column which converted their $ values for bb (I think? – probably got it wrong, but whatever), then the lowest values for each buy-in level is bolded. Finally I added another column which gave the bb reduced by my rakeback (albeit at my rate as an affiliate – drop a few points off that for the masses).

It looks like nl5 might be ok with Bodog, and then above that Cake looks good. nl2 is clearly a waste of time. The only thing about Bodog is that it’s not a regular rake sign-up, it has to be a ‘secret’ bonus offer I can offer through people already signed up with meteoricpoker.com and I haven’t figured out how to enable it yet (sooo professional!). I already have the Cake account though, so could just jump in at nl25. No HUD though which is a bit scary.

The 5k freeroll I went out about 9000th – playing a few hands which all missed on flop + failed to get a cbet fold tends to cripple your stack, followed by the inevitable shove as the blinds begin to bite. I saw S1ndr0me hold on a bit longer as he doubled up at some point, but later even he succumbed to a AJ vs A9 seeing a 9 on the flop. Bit of a waste of time really anyway – you have to beat thousands of others just to cash $10? What’s the point…

The Turbo Takedown is similar, but at least the cash is better. I had poor hands throughout, although at least this time I did build my stack a bit. However again the blinds were ferocious and eventually I failed to stay in. I was tantalizingly close to the money – from a field of twenty-two thousand people (!!!), only 6900 were left and 5oooth place paid $78. But beating 15,000 other idiots wasn’t enough and I was left empty handed. Yegor railed me throughout (nothing better to do, really?) and said that I needed to have built a stronger stack and taken more risks. He’s right, but I was feeling a bit risk averse unfortunately.

So, no new update to November’s results. Might play tonight, but whatever.

Plans for December? I’ve decided that all my plotting and calculations on what’s the best rakeback etc is all a bit pointless when done in a vacuum. What I really need to do is actually put my money where my mouth is and test it out.

So I’m going to split my bankroll equally between Pokerstars, Full Tilt and Ultimate Bet. I’ll switch my sessions equally between the three and see how it goes (I’ll try to match it so that by the end of the month I’ll have roughly the same number of hands at each site). At the end of the month(s) I’ll also factor in Rakeback and bonuses into my winnings and see which site comes out on top. I probably should add in Titan, but I don’t want to spread the BR that thin on any one site.

This hopefully will factor in things such as the ‘softness’ of the sites, table selection etc, and see if it’s true that if the players on Ultimate Bet are that much worse than Full Tilt, then it should show a better winrate from that site.

Ok, now I’m rolled again for NL10 I need to choose where to play (I say rolled again loosely – even though I’ve played half my lifetime hands at NL10, I was never actually rolled for it!).

I currently have accounts for Full Tilt, Pokerstars, Titan and Ultimate Bet (and PKR but it crashes on my laptop so I don’t care about them).

NL10 rake for each site;

Full Tilt: $0.01 per $0.15 in pot ($2 max)

Pokerstars: $0.05 per $1 in pot ($3 max)

Ultimate Bet: $0.01 per $0.20 in pot ($3 max)

Titan: $0.01 per $0.15 in pot (£2 max)

I have 27% rakeback for Full Tilt and 35% for Ultimate Bet (5% higher than usual offers since I’m an affiliate!)

I decided to break it down to see the Rake in a small pot (ie raise 3bb, get a call, cbet & they fold) = $0.75, and medium pot of £3, big pot of $10 and stacks of $20;

Results are (last time I did this I messed up and Yegor corrected me – he’s away at the moment so my ignorance may go unnoticed this time);
small pot
$0.75
UB: 0.03- 35% =   0.0195 (Rakeback 0.0105)
FT: 0.05 – 27% =   0.0365 (rakeback 0.0135)
PS:                               0
TI:                               0.05

med pot:
$3
UB: 0.15 – 35% =     0.0975 (rakeback 0.0525)
FT: 0.20 – 27% =     0.146 (rakeback 0.054)
PS:                                 0.15
TI:                                  0.20

big pot:
$10
UB: 0.50 – 35% =     0.325 (rakeback 0.175)
FT: 0.66 – 27% =     0.48 (rakeback 0.1782)
PS:                                 0.50
TI:                                  0.66

stacks
$20
UB: 1.00 – 35% =    0.65 (rakeback 0.35)
FT: 1.33 – 27% =     0.73 (rakeback 0.3591)
PS:                                1.00
TI:                                 1.33

So, apart from the smallest pots,  it looks like Ultimate Bet is the winner. Pokerstars has no rake for those small pots though – does that outweigh the savings in the big pots? Most pots are small, so it might?

The other consideration is that you get rakeback regardless of whether you win the pot or not. That seems to argue for *more* rake as long as the rakeback % is high enough. Which sounds kinda stupid, but actually gives you a solid variance free return on your play. Full Tilt has a marginal edge on Ultimate Bet here, but it’s very close.

Finally, nothing to do with rake, the traffic is lower at UB, and I’m not keen on their interface. However 2p2 has a real chip on it’s shoulder about the site which probably reduces the number of 2p2 regs (even at nanostakes!).

Decisions, decisions… It’s really looking like Ultimate Bet. Oh well, I was really hoping it’d be Full Tilt, but whatever.

Update: Ok, the problem is that there’s two ways that sites calculate the MGR (monthly gross rake). There’s the dealt method, where every player at the table is attributed as a share of each pot, and then there’s the contributed method where only the players involved in the pot are.

So for instance, for Full Tilt does the dealt method – it’s a 6max game and the pot is $10. Every player is attibuted $0.11 (rake was $0.66), and those with rakeback get $0.0297 back.

Ultimate Bet uses the contributed method. If you were involved in that pot & there was just one villain, you’d be attributed with $0.25 (rake was $0.50), and the rakeback (at my enhanced rate) would be $0.0875. However if I wasn’t in that pot, I wouldn’t be attributed anything.

So, there’s a bunch more factors to consider for the contributed method (dealt method is easy). Well, two more factors really – how many players typically in a pot and how many pots do you contribute to (ie  your VP$IP %).

My head’s starting to spin now – as if rake paid vs rakeback wasn’t enough…

ok, some assumptions. I play 270 hands per hour (apparently). Average pot size is $1.30. My VP$IP is 20%. There’s an average of 30% players to a flop on 6 max (so 1.8 players).

Full Tilt: 270 * $1.30 / 0.15 * 0.01 / 6 = $3.90, 27% rake = $1.053 rakeback

Ultimate Bet: 270 * 0.2 * $1.30 / 0.20 * 0.01 = $3.51, 35% rake = $1.228 rakeback

So that’s how much rakeback I make – UB in the lead there.

Actually if I plug in the standard 30% rakeback for Ultimate Bet it comes out as;

Ultimate Bet: 270 * 0.2 * $1.30 / 0.20 * 0.01 = $3.51, 30% rake = $1.053 rakeback – exactly the same as Full Tilt!!!

Do I have to compare it to rake lost? Only the winner of a pot loses out due to rake so it has nothing to do with whether it’s contributed or dealt. All that matters is the actual amount. And again, Ultimate Bet wins there.

Have I messed up with these calculations? No idea – I think what I need to do is play on both UB and Full Tilt for a while and just compare rakeback.

On top of that Full Tilt just offered me a $100 bonus. So I guess I’m on Full Tilt for this month anyway…