Well, not really 
But imagine a scenario where you somehow won a 100% rakeback for cash games for one month which will only work on one stake of your choice. You can't change the stakes after picking and deciding you're not +EV in those games.
Let's assume BR isn't a problem.
What stakes would you assume you could be beating? And what stakes would you choose for max profit?
Also mention what stakes you play now ofc.
I guess I would choose same limit as I play now. Now I am loosing but without rake I guess I would be doing ok 
NL25
that's a really tough question... i put quite a lot of thought into it. it was pretty close but at the end i decided that i would probably just watch them.
Originally posted by unshpe
What if unicorns danced with leprachauns ? Would you jump in or just watch them?
I'd watch em & wait for a chance to snatch a Leprachaun & hold him hostage until he gave me his pot of gold 
As for the rakeback question I play NL2 & NL5, so I'd just pick NL5 for 100% rakeback. 100% rakeback truly would be awesome. Its shameful how much rake I pay. Its more than my profits for sure.
Originally posted by xero100
become pokerstars pro if you really want 100% rakeback.
Or better, become rich if you want money.
What I wanted to know is how people from different stakes estimate their skill facing players of different level. So if poker is rake free on which level does a player think he has at least 1bb edge over the field.
Does a 100NL player think he could be winning then on NL1k? Or a 10NL player on NL100 etc etc
I'd choose NL50 or NL100, but no way one's gonna get 100 % RB ♦ Even 30 would be awesome (Y)
I would i think play nl200. I currently play nl5-nl10, but mainly because some of my winnings is withdrawn and taken in to trading. And because pokerstars is slapping me 24/7 about not moving up in mtts -.-
This is not a small edge 100% rakeback, but insanely huge, therefore because i've seen how some play at theese stakes, this would be my shot. Or maybe just nl100, but i like to believe i can beat nl200 aswell.
I guess I would play one limit higher. Its not only about bein able to beat a limit but also about being able to withhold the variance. So I would give Nl1000 a shot if i had 100% rb - depends a lot on the field though( i dont play on stars).
^
Lol, if you didn't know, on nl1000 there is so small rake that you wouldn't even notice. I very doubt that in nl25 slightly winning player without rakeback would be a winning player in nl100 with 100% rakeback. Everyone thinks that he is a pro and blames the rake 
Originally posted by wealthybrainer
^
Lol, if you didn't know, on nl1000 there is so small rake that you wouldn't even notice. I very doubt that in nl25 slightly winning player without rakeback would be a winning player in nl100 with 100% rakeback. Everyone thinks that he is a pro and blames the rake
Don't think he's unreasonable in thinking that. The skill gap between 600 and 1k isn't that big given that many 1k regs play 600 too, so even 1,4bb rake reduction could be good enough for someone beating 600 already. Tho as he said, depends a lot on how much tougher stars games are compared to the sites he plays on.slight winner on 25 would lose at 100, but a decent winner could have a shot I'd say if he game selected well. Not necessarily the best decision for him profits wise tho.
Well i play mostly nl100 with some 1/2 mixed in and if i'd be given a 100% RB and had to chose 1 limit i'd be 1/2.
100% rb doesn't make enough of a difference to move up to 2/4 or 3/6. Right now im getting 50%RB on stars as it is so that extra 50% doesn't make a huge difference considering how the games are on 2/4 and 3/6.
You pretty much can't only decide to play 2/4 or 3/6 given that there's only 12 tables running on 2/4 and only 6 tables of 3/6. Your pretty much forced to mix limits if you play midstakes or higher.
And the rake on 1/2 is significantly higher in bb/100 compared to 2/4 and 3/6 and you can get 24 tables running 24/7. I just think thats the way to get max EV in terms of my hourly in a rake-free system.
Assuming unicorns to be roughly the size of horses, I don't think I'd jump in. I can't even dance with humans; attempting to do so with a unicorn would only result in my being trampled to death.
I guess someday (in near future) poker sites will charge 0% rake.
They will adopt "tax system" i.e charge you only if you profit. They will charge you on withdrawl.
In order to keep fish happy and stay longer.
Originally posted by patszerdonk
I guess someday (in near future) poker sites will charge 0% rake.
They will adopt "tax system" i.e charge you only if you profit. They will charge you on withdrawl.In order to keep fish happy and stay longer.
and there would be no more wars, everybody would live in harmony...
(there was (or maybe still is) a site who worked by that principle.
