omaha rake

freechips1

ohh dear, any1 no what the rake is on HU PLO? i played sky santa yesturday 25/50 we started with £50 between us and 30 mins l8r i had won it all but only had £36 (£14 in rake).  just finished playin 5p/10p HU PLO £14 in rake in just over 30 mins, is it just me or is this a little high, i no nl hold em the rake wouldnt of been this much.  do u get charged more rake coz u get more cards?

MereNovice

I'm pretty sure that the rake will be the same, i.e. 5% of matched bets, capped at £1.60.
I suspect that it seems higher in absolute terms because average pot sizes in PLO tend to be higher than for the equivalent level of NLHE.

SHANXTA

Unfortunately this is where players on sky are going to lose out big time or rakeback.

Merenovice is as usual, 100% right, the pots in PLO will be bigger than NLHE and therefore you will pay more rake. However Skypoker base the amount of pokerpoints you get on how many hands you play, rather than how much rake u pay, where as over sites give you points dependent on how much rake is paid per hand 

ACESOVER8s

Agreed Shanxta, i'm not a fan of skys current poker point system as has been seen in many of the threads i've been involved in. I don't think it equates fairly when put up against other companies loyalty schemes although the are trying to make some changes. PLO on here should be good for those that have payed it a lot as they will be against novice players and should be able to make their edge count but after 6 months when the people who are going to mix it up and play both have learn't plo properly then i'm affraid there will be little value to it due to high rake and low rakeback (or equivalent cash back through poker points). As other sites pay on the rake then you can rake back just as much in PLO (in fact more because your paying more rake per hand) as in holdem.

chirker

I agree, couldn't believe how much rake was, i thought a mistake must have been made. Played  heads up for two hours,  half of my winning's went on the rake, won't be playing it again.

loonytoons

i think maybe the rake was big too as it was heads up and both players would be in most hands in omaha, much less folding. 6 seater would be better as the rakes would be spread more thinly between various players, ie instead of 1 player paying £14 rake, 6 would pay just over £2 each on average. moral of the story is dont play heads up omaha, unless you win the lot in a couple of hands, the rakes will stack up 

freechips1

if u was getting 30% rake back it would be ok.  maybe i was playin like a donk wanting to see to many flops and turns, i think thats why the pros say its so hard to show a profit playing at such low stakes.  If you was playin 10k HU PLO £1.60 dont mater 2 much but sat with £20 5% every hand soon kills the game.

chirker

In Response to Re: omaha rake:

i think maybe the rake was big too as it was heads up and both players would be in most hands in omaha, much less folding. 6 seater would be better as the rakes would be spread more thinly between various players, ie instead of 1 player paying £14 rake, 6 would pay just over £2 each on average. moral of the story is dont play heads up omaha, unless you win the lot in a couple of hands, the rakes will stack up 
Posted by loonytoons

Good advice, thank's.