Who pays the rake?

[EjnarPik]

When I started out playing poker, this was sometimes discussed. The winners claimed they paid, as the money was taken out of the pots they won. The losers claimed they paid, as there would have been no money for the rake, if they had not lost. Somebody claimed that all paid the rake, as it was taken from everybody.

What is your opinion?

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[playerfl]

over time it is collected from everybody evenly if they all play the same number of hands.

who pays the rake in any particular hand is a purely philosophical discussion.

[Luv2DriveTT]

The winner pays the rake. It is taken from his or her winnings. The loosers do not pay an additional fee when they loose, therefore the loosers do not pay.

In da club /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Louie Landale]

The loser of the hand does not pay the rake. If you call all the way you'll lose 3BB on the hand and it doesn't matter how much the rake is: you lose 3BB.

The winner of the pot pays the rake. If you call all the way heads-up you'll win 3BB from the opponent MINUS the rake. This means you need to dowgrade the actual pot size, early in the hand, when determining to play. If there is likely a $3 rake then your first decision should presume the pot is about $3 less than it actually is.

Over-all the folks that win the most hands pay most of the rake.

- Louie

[playerfl]

addendum: if one person wins a lot more hands than anyone else then they would pay more rake. If everyone wins the same percentage of hands then the rake is evenly distributed.

[ZeeJustin]

When you propose 2 scenarios, one has no "ifs" and the other does, go with the one without the ifs.

[ACW]

At PL high-low split games it's often both of you!

It's not uncommon to split the pot and get back less than you put in. It can even happen at high only games. One of my best moments playing poker was when I correctly folded with the nuts to an all-in bet with one caller already there. All three of us had the same hand and I'd have lost money by calling!

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
When I started out playing poker, this was sometimes discussed. The winners claimed they paid, as the money was taken out of the pots they won. The losers claimed they paid, as there would have been no money for the rake, if they had not lost. Somebody claimed that all paid the rake, as it was taken from everybody.

What is your opinion?

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at it this way:

10 guys sits down with $1000 ($10000 total) and plays poker for 5 hrs in somebodys home. When they leave they still leave with $10000 total just distributed differently.

The day after the same guys brings $1000 each to the casino and play for 5 hrs and magically they get the exact same hands and play them the exact same way. Now they leave with only $9000. Only people who never won a pot leaves with the same amount as the night before, so chances are that everybody leaves with less.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
When I started out playing poker, this was sometimes discussed. The winners claimed they paid, as the money was taken out of the pots they won. The losers claimed they paid, as there would have been no money for the rake, if they had not lost. Somebody claimed that all paid the rake, as it was taken from everybody.

What is your opinion?


[/ QUOTE ]

The winner pays the rake. But, more importantly, the looser player pays a larger percentage of the rake. A loose player is likely to be in more hands and win more pots. He will pay the rake out of each pot he wins. A tighter player is in less hands and wins fewer pots -- although hopefully a higher percentage of the pots he is in.

Another reason to play tight when the rake is significant.

[SeppDeitrich]

so what you're saying is the pot's winner pays the rake, if that's what you're saying you'd be right. Over the long run tight players will pay less rake.

[bygmesterf]

[ QUOTE ]
so what you're saying is the pot's winner pays the rake, if that's what you're saying you'd be right. Over the long run tight players will pay less rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why games with a rake tend to be tighter than games with a time charge.

[mrjetguy]

I look at it this way, if a losing player losses every hand he plays, then they pay no rake at all. The rake has zero effect on them. While if a winner wins every hands he pays a ton in rake, so there is a big effect on him. So, the winner pays the rake in the most straight forward sense...

[pzhon]

Imagine recording the size of each pot and who won, then collecting the rake all at once at the end of the night. It should be clear that the gross winners pay the rake.

The net winners often pay less rake than average. Playing tightly (relative to a loose table) may decrease both your gross wins and your gross losses, but your gross losses decrease by more.

[xrongor]

[ QUOTE ]
So, the winner pays the rake in the most straight forward sense...

[/ QUOTE ]

but its not straight forward. i define the winner as the one who leaves with the most chips. someone playing a high variance game wins more pots whereas someone who plays tight and wins 75% of the pots the chase pays less. so my theory is whoever's game has the greatest variance pays the most rake.

randy

[meow_meow]

This is really very straightforward. In the long run, looser players pay more of the rake than tighter players.
If you are a reasonable tight player and use PT, just check it out:
there are two ways to calculate rake paid:
1. the rake taken from pots you won (far right on the general tab in pt)
2. the average rake taken per player in hands you played (in summary tab, total rake / ave. # of players)

For me at least, (2) is 50% higher than (1). That is to say that I actually pay only 2/3 of my "share" of the total rake...

[Xargque]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine recording the size of each pot and who won, then collecting the rake all at once at the end of the night. It should be clear that the gross winners pay the rake.

The net winners often pay less rake than average. Playing tightly (relative to a loose table) may decrease both your gross wins and your gross losses, but your gross losses decrease by more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this method of determining.

You're right unless the Casino takes a "drop" (a fixed price from each pot, regardless of size) then the money comes from those who win the greatest number of pots (typically loose, probably normally losing players who won more than their share that night). If the rake is a fixed percent with no max, then it comes from those who win the most money. If it is a percent with a max, then it's somewhere in between.

-X

[QuickLearner]

I believe there's a close parallel to sports betting. The sportsbook takes a fraction of the wager as a fee for handling the transaction. The loser never pays any of that fee because he only loses what he wagers. The winner pays the fee because he wins less than 100% of his wager (bet $110 to win $100, etc.). Each sporting event is a separate wagering opportunity and each poker hand is a separate wagering opportunity as well. The house extracts its fee after each wagering opportunity. The cardroom's fee is the rake and it comes out of the winner's proceeds.

I guess the object is to have the bitterest complaint about rake.

[magiluke]

Everyone pays the rake.
Say table has $5000 on it, and the rake takes $4 per hand. After an hour (for simplicity, I'm assuming 30 hands an hour), the casino (or poker venue) takes $120, now the total money on the table is $4880. It doesn't matter how much money is paid per hand; there is now $120 less dollars for you to win from everyone. After 5 hours, the casino has gotten $600 table dollars, again, less for you to win from everyone else (or for them to win from you, but let's be optimistic).
If you put money in a pot at all, they are raking your money, not any particular person's. So no one in particular is actually paying the rake, everyone is...

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone pays the rake.
Say table has $5000 on it, and the rake takes $4 per hand. After an hour (for simplicity, I'm assuming 30 hands an hour), the casino (or poker venue) takes $120, now the total money on the table is $4880. It doesn't matter how much money is paid per hand; there is now $120 less dollars for you to win from everyone. After 5 hours, the casino has gotten $600 table dollars, again, less for you to win from everyone else (or for them to win from you, but let's be optimistic).
If you put money in a pot at all, they are raking your money, not any particular person's. So no one in particular is actually paying the rake, everyone is...

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! We have a winner!

[cmn9]

I have a seat to the $215 tournament o Sunday at 430ET. I will seel it to anyone for like $210

[QuickLearner]

I disagree MagiLuke

For your argument to be accurate every player in every hand should suffer a loss (on every hand) whether they win or not. In your example, how much have you been raked if you never won a single pot during the hour? The answer is $0 I believe. If you won a few pots and those pots were raked, you suffered the loss. The winner of the pot loses the rake after every hand. The losers in the hand lose nothing during the process of raking because once the money is in the pot it isn't theirs anymore, it belongs to the pot and later to the winner.

There may be $5000 on the table, but that bears no relationship to the raking of individual hands, right?

[timmer]

The winner pays the rake with a portion of the bets won from all the players that contribute them.

Thats why it is important not to pursue edges smaller than the portion of the rake that you are accountable for in a given betting senario in a raked game.

this is a very basic explanation.

timmer

[magiluke]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree MagiLuke

For your argument to be accurate every player in every hand should suffer a loss (on every hand) whether they win or not. In your example, how much have you been raked if you never won a single pot during the hour? The answer is $0 I believe. If you won a few pots and those pots were raked, you suffered the loss. The winner of the pot loses the rake after every hand. The losers in the hand lose nothing during the process of raking because once the money is in the pot it isn't theirs anymore, it belongs to the pot and later to the winner.

There may be $5000 on the table, but that bears no relationship to the raking of individual hands, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I lost every hand I played, some of my money went to the casino. And if, during say one hour, I didn't play a single hand, I'm still losing the possibility of making more money, sonce there is less money at the table in general. It's an economic loss of money to the rake.