Hold the presses: The wise people on the MSN microstakes chat group have pointed out that I need to consider the way MGR is calculated. Some more head scratching required before the following is right or wrong. Update: Had a think – my thoughts at the bottom of this post…

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…