Amount of rake at low stakes vs high stakes

[pokerbucket]

Is there anyone else out there that feels the rake at the low limits is relatively so much higher than the high stakes that it puts you at a disadvantage. I mean come on in a .25/.50 the max rake is $3 and in $100/200 it is also $3. $60 pot in low limit they take 3 bucks... $400,000 pot they take $3 bucks lol. Ive been playing on full tilt for 6 months at the super low limits and I have paid well over a grand in rake.. even with the rakeback it is still hard to beat the games... Maybe I am just a break even player...

[break_even29]

I definitely agree that having the same max rake per hand at the micros and nosebleeds doesn't make any sense. All it would take is one poker room capping the micros at like $1 to make them all do it since most, if not all, micro players would migrate to that site.

[loidis]

Yes, but the chance of gettng maximum rake in a micro game is much lower than in a say, .50/$1 game.

I tried a little experiment last week.

Multitabled 4 x .10/.25c games for 12 hours and then single-tabled 1 x .50/$1 table for 12 hours and the higher table earned me at least 4 times more rakeback.

Micro tables need "big hands" to generate decent rake while higher tables are virtually guaranteed a rake with just one raise and a call.

For part-time players , If you are after rake back it is better to "half-load" $50 into a 0.50/$1 table than fully load a .25/.50c table

[miechelabaquita]

ahh that'z fabulous thanks again....