Who Pays the Rake?

[andyfox]

On another forum, there was a comment that the winning players end up paying the rake. I'm not so sure. I know a lot of losing players who win more pots than some of the winning players.

Are there stats on the internet that indicate how much rake a player had paid per hand dealt? And can that then be correleated with whether a player wins or loses to actually see who does "pay the rake"?

[Justin A]

I know that I pay less rake than the table average. This works well for rakeback, because the rake I generate is calculated by the table average. So I get 25% of the average rake, which is higher than if I got back 25% of just the rake I've paid.

[Michael Davis]

Almost all winning players pay less rake than the table average. This has been solved by Pokertracker.

-Michael

[bicyclekick]

at 15/30, with rakeback, I pay about 49% of the ammount of rake an average player pays. AVG is about $1.65 per hand. I'm paying about 82 cents.

[TStoneMBD]

so then how do i know what my rakeback totals are supposed to be? i thought rakeback was calculated by how much rake i personally accumulate, not the table average.

[anuj]

[ QUOTE ]
so then how do i know what my rakeback totals are supposed to be? i thought rakeback was calculated by how much rake i personally accumulate, not the table average.

[/ QUOTE ]
Likewise, I get 23% of my rake, back. If there are any programs that do a percentage of total table rake, please PM me. I like extra money.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so then how do i know what my rakeback totals are supposed to be? i thought rakeback was calculated by how much rake i personally accumulate, not the table average.

[/ QUOTE ]
Likewise, I get 23% of my rake, back. If there are any programs that do a percentage of total table rake, please PM me. I like extra money.

[/ QUOTE ]


As far as I know, they have no good way to calculate how many pots you win.... or it's a whole lot eaiser to assume you are paying for fair share of .30 a hand. So, I do believe that all rakeback programs - at least all those with party - base returns on hands played, not won.

CSC

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
On another forum, there was a comment that the winning players end up paying the rake. I'm not so sure. I know a lot of losing players who win more pots than some of the winning players.

[/ QUOTE ]

At a typical loose lower limit game, the long term loser obviously pays more rake since they almost always win more pots (because they go too far with their hands). Conversely, at low limits it is rare to see a winning player who plays in a style that allows him to win more than his fair share of pots.

At high limits, winning styles vary, but some of the toughest players frequently attack the pot, playing on the edge, winning more pots and thus pay more than their fair share.

Where was this thread?

~ Rick

[anuj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so then how do i know what my rakeback totals are supposed to be? i thought rakeback was calculated by how much rake i personally accumulate, not the table average.

[/ QUOTE ]
Likewise, I get 23% of my rake, back. If there are any programs that do a percentage of total table rake, please PM me. I like extra money.

[/ QUOTE ]


As far as I know, they have no good way to calculate how many pots you win.... or it's a whole lot eaiser to assume you are paying for fair share of .30 a hand. So, I do believe that all rakeback programs - at least all those with party - base returns on hands played, not won.

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]
Well my question did not have to do with hands won. I was wondering if the person I quoted receives his rake back based on rake seen (meaning rake generated by casino when he receives a hand played or folded) or is his rake back based on the amount of rake he himself puts into the pot (blinds, hands played, not necessarily won or lost).

It's late, did I misinterpret what you said?

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so then how do i know what my rakeback totals are supposed to be? i thought rakeback was calculated by how much rake i personally accumulate, not the table average.

[/ QUOTE ]
Likewise, I get 23% of my rake, back. If there are any programs that do a percentage of total table rake, please PM me. I like extra money.

[/ QUOTE ]


As far as I know, they have no good way to calculate how many pots you win.... or it's a whole lot eaiser to assume you are paying for fair share of .30 a hand. So, I do believe that all rakeback programs - at least all those with party - base returns on hands played, not won.

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]
Well my question did not have to do with hands won. I was wondering if the person I quoted receives his rake back based on rake seen (meaning rake generated by casino when he receives a hand played or folded) or is his rake back based on the amount of rake he himself puts into the pot (blinds, hands played, not necessarily won or lost).

It's late, did I misinterpret what you said?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you did, but it is late, so I'm not sure. Rakeback tends to give you a % of $.30 for every hand you are dealt. Does that clear things up? It is possible that TStone has a diferrent deal, but if he does, it goes against the norm.

CSC

[bugstud]

not always $.30

it's avg rake/# of players

so playing shorthanded means you pay more rake, etc.

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
On another forum, there was a comment that the winning players end up paying the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then whoever made the comment is an idiot.

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
At high limits, winning styles vary, but some of the toughest players frequently attack the pot, playing on the edge, winning more pots and thus pay more than their fair share.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if this were true, which in a full game it isn't, it would be in games that don't rake the pot.

The only interesting question this thread could generate would be: "If a winning player and a loosing player played head up, who would pay more rake?"

[Hattifnatt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On another forum, there was a comment that the winning players end up paying the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then whoever made the comment is an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]
His point maybe was that the winning player is going up in limits and therefore plays more rake.. (eg. at 10/20 instead of 1/2 the rake is higher/hand).
+ That the winning player playing more tables and don't get broke and keep playing...

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
at 15/30, with rakeback, I pay about 49% of the ammount of rake an average player pays. AVG is about $1.65 per hand. I'm paying about 82 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're taking into account rakeback? Then how are you calculating the average amount paid by everyone else since you don't know what sort of rakeback they are getting? Are you assuming that no one but you has rakeback? Because that's not true.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
"If a winning player and a loosing player played head up, who would pay more rake?"

[/ QUOTE ]
That would completely depend on the style of the losing player.

[Oluwafemi]

andy's question, in part, comes from a thread i started in the WPT forum about a comment Russ Georgiev made on his website: www.pokermafia.com (http://www.pokermafia.com) about poker theory books.

"the theory books of today are there for equalization and to help players lose their money more slowly, making a larger rake for the house".

Russ happened to be discussing his opinion that there has'nt been a poker book written that can teach you how to be a World Class player. so in light of a poker theory book
like Sklansky's TOP, the book could help equalize an inferior player's game with that of a superior player and close the gap, helping the inferior player lose less over a longer period of time, but still not not come out a winner against the superior player in the long run. at least that's the conclusion i came to.

how the house makes a larger rake? somebody else with more expertise in that can answer that question.

[MaxPower]

Of course, better players will usually pay less rake per hand than the poor players because they play tighter.

However, the house will get a higher percentage of their overall rake from the better players because the better players play many more hands/hours.

I think this is even more true in online poker because of multitabling. The multi-tabling winning players are probably the most valuable customers for these sites, but they don't treat them that way. These people pay obscene amounts of rake each year.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, better players will usually pay less rake per hand than the poor players because they play tighter.

However, the house will get a higher percentage of their overall rake from the better players because the better players play many more hands/hours.

I think this is even more true in online poker because of multitabling. The multi-tabling winning players are probably the most valuable customers for these sites, but they don't treat them that way. These people pay obscene amounts of rake each year.

[/ QUOTE ]

so by reading Russ's comment on game theory and how it contributes to a bigger rake for the house, he would be dead on, correct?

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
at 15/30, with rakeback, I pay about 49% of the ammount of rake an average player pays. AVG is about $1.65 per hand. I'm paying about 82 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're taking into account rakeback? Then how are you calculating the average amount paid by everyone else since you don't know what sort of rakeback they are getting? Are you assuming that no one but you has rakeback? Because that's not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The average player does not have rakeback. Of course most 2+2'ers have it and many others...Don't patronize me, of course I know others have rakeback.

[MaxPower]

I don't know why you are talking about game theory. The comment you quoted was about poker books, not game theory.

As far as I know, most poker books don't even cover game theory. There is one chapter on it in the Theory of Poker and that is it.


Most poker books will make you into a mediocre player. That includes the 2+2 books unless you read and study them many times and work hard on your game. So yes, I think that reading a book slows down the losing for most people, and keeps the games going longer.


His comment seemed to imply that poker books are some kind of conspiracy by the poker rooms to increase rake. Although they may actually have that effect, I don't think that is the reason for poker books.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you are talking about game theory. The comment you quoted was about poker books, not game theory.

As far as I know, most poker books don't even cover game theory. There is one chapter on it in the Theory of Poker and that is it.


Most poker books will make you into a mediocre player. That includes the 2+2 books unless you read and study them many times and work hard on your game. So yes, I think that reading a book slows down the losing for most people, and keeps the games going longer.


His comment seemed to imply that poker books are some kind of conspiracy by the poker rooms to increase rake. Although they may actually have that effect, I don't think that is the reason for poker books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Russ's quote has to do with poker books that cover game theory. i never took his comment as a conspiracy by poker books in general to increase the rake for poker rooms. i took his comment to mean that by an inferior player applying game theory would allow him to LOSE LESS over a longer period of time, with the by-product being that the House benefits from increased rake.

[MaxPower]

I don't think you and I are using the term "game theory" in the same way. I'm not sure that you really understand what Sklansky meant when he said he could use "game theory" in the 4K/8K game.

Most poker books just don't cover the type of thing that Sklansky was talking about.

Also, I looked at Russ G's website and I don't see the quote that you attributed to him on there.

Yes, the house benefits when people don't bust out, it doesn't take the genius of Russ G. to figure that out.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I (Rick) wrote: "At high limits, winning styles vary, but some of the toughest players frequently attack the pot, playing on the edge, winning more pots and thus pay more than their fair share."

[/ QUOTE ]

Gabe responded: "Even if this were true, which in a full game it isn't, it would be in games that don't rake the pot."

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let me clarify. In a game such as 40/80 holdem, at the upper edge of middle limits and lower bound of higher limits, where rake is now collected at major card rooms such as Commerce, in a full game some winning players adopt an "aggressive", "pot-attacking", "push every edge" style that allows them to win more than their fair share of pots. Since the rake is paid from pots won, they (along with the loose, weak losing players) pay more in rake than tigher players. The tighter players, as long as they are skilled and approrpriately aggressive, usually win in these games, but they don't pay their fair share of rake (i.e., more than 1/9th of the rake in a nine-handed game).

Now what part of the above statement is not true?

[ QUOTE ]
The only interesting question this thread could generate would be: "If a winning player and a loosing player played head up, who would pay more rake?"

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be interesting but that is a totally different question. Besides, most B&M heads up play is played with time collection /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

~ Rick

[andyfox]

See Oluwafemi's post in this thread for a link to the other thread.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you and I are using the term "game theory" in the same way. I'm not sure that you really understand what Sklansky meant when he said he could use "game theory" in the 4K/8K game.

Most poker books just don't cover the type of thing that Sklansky was talking about.

Also, I looked at Russ G's website and I don't see the quote that you attributed to him on there.

Yes, the house benefits when people don't bust out, it doesn't take the genius of Russ G. to figure that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

he makes the comment in the Free Articles section under Isolation Play. considering how much experience Russ says he has in cash games, i'm assuming it's that very experience that made him come to that conclusion rather than genius.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're taking into account rakeback? Then how are you calculating the average amount paid by everyone else since you don't know what sort of rakeback they are getting? Are you assuming that no one but you has rakeback? Because that's not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The average player does not have rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to find what the "average" player pays, then you need to know what the average amount of rakeback is, and it's certainly not zero, even though the large majority of players get no rakeback.

[stoxtrader]

there are really two different ideas here.

1) who absorbs the cost of the rake? I posit that this is the looser players, as they are competing for more pots that are raked, so I say any pot you are in that gets rake means you are taking some of that cost.

2) for purposes of poker room calculating rake attributed to each player most do it this way (including party):

rake/# of players in a hand = MGR

at 15/30, avg rake is about 2.65, and avg player's is about 9. so if you play 10k hands at 15/30, party credits your total MGR with

2.65/9 (10,000) = 2,944

hope that clears one part up...

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
Now what part of the above statement is not true?


[/ QUOTE ]

This:

[ QUOTE ]
In a game such as 40/80 holdem, at the upper edge of middle limits and lower bound of higher limits, where rake is now collected at major card rooms such as Commerce, in a full game some winning players adopt an "aggressive", "pot-attacking", "push every edge" style that allows them to win more than their fair share of pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now what part of the above statement is not true?


[/ QUOTE ]

This:

[ QUOTE ]
In a game such as 40/80 holdem, at the upper edge of middle limits and lower bound of higher limits, where rake is now collected at major card rooms such as Commerce, in a full game some winning players adopt an "aggressive", "pot-attacking", "push every edge" style that allows them to win more than their fair share of pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Maybe it would work better if I said "the push every edge winning players win nearly their fair share of pots (thus paying close to their fair share of rake); that said, the loose losing players still pay most of the rake since they win the most pots. Typical winning players are at least tighter than the table average (that doesn't mean all tight players win)"

Or how's this: "When I started playing holdem when it first became legal in California in 1987, I beat the super loose 5/10 holdem games for $20 per hour while winning only .51 pots per round (I used to keep track of blinds passed and pots won by bending matches out of matchbooks, transferring the data into dBase2). I didn't pay my fair share of the rake since I didn't win that many pots. Such a nitty, tight, harvesting. style has no chance to make substantial money against better players at higher limits."

At this point I just think you are busting my balls /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Rick

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
Now what part of the above statement is not true?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this:

Since the rake is paid from pots won,

Don't they pay time? So rake would either be spread evenly or it would be paid by time pots which winning player would tight in no matter what there style.

[mike l.]

"At high limits"

at higher limits there are collection pots and they are the greatest thing on earth for a thinking player who wants to avoid paying the rake as much as possible. i mean i am SO in love with collection pots, it makes me want to play high limits all the time.

which is why im playing 5-10 online for the time being.

so when do i get to come show off on live at the bike night or whatever it is.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"At high limits"

[/ QUOTE ]

at higher limits there are collection pots and they are the greatest thing on earth for a thinking player who wants to avoid paying the rake as much as possible. i mean i am SO in love with collection pots, it makes me want to play high limits all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


To suit Gabe (who I'm now convinced is just busting my chops in posts above), I revised "higher limits" to be the upper edge of raked games. Anyway I agree, collection pots sound great. Rather than avoid collections, my guess is you will find great spots to steal during collection pots /images/graemlins/grin.gif


[ QUOTE ]
which is why im playing 5-10 online for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you play six or more tables like my hero Michael Davis?


[ QUOTE ]
so when do i get to come show off on live at the bike night or whatever it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's supposed to be a 20/40 this Saturday. Come early to sign up. BTW, I think we might institute a dress code so be prepared /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

~ Rick

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we might institute a dress code so be prepared

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really a problem with mike? I would think that the table would cover up his belly hanging out of the bottom of his t-shirt.

Oh, and yeah, collection pots are the greatest thing ever, especially in LA where the live one's seem to enjoy playing them even more than normal!

[andyfox]

If mike is coming, I might too. Let me ask the warden tomorrow.

I'm planning to fold pocket aces preflops and ditto the nuts on the river.

[mike l.]

"Can you play six or more tables like my hero Michael Davis?"

just 4 so far but im aiming for six i will need a new monitor. i will wait until i get 25,000 hands under my belt and then decide if i should try 6 tables. 4 is not that hard so i could see 6 or 8 being fine.

"It's supposed to be a 20/40 this Saturday. Come early to sign up. BTW, I think we might institute a dress code so be prepared."

ill dress nice but im not going to show up early because my pal rick is going to get me on the list so im sure to have a seat remember?

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
If mike is coming, I might too. Let me ask the warden tomorrow.

I'm planning to fold pocket aces preflops and ditto the nuts on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just make sure it's a nice and juicy pot when you fold on the river. And do some head shaking with the aces.

[Amanjyaku]

Let's say there are ten players at a table playing poker; five good players, and five bad players. At the end of the session, all the bad players are broke, and all the good players are up. During the session, the bad players played more hands than the good players, and won more pots on average than the good players, and so they paid more rake than the good players. But if there were no rake, that rake money would have ended up in the pockets of the good players. So although it might be said that more rake came out of pots dragged by the baddies, it might also be said that it was the good players' money by right of conquest, to mangle a concept.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we might institute a dress code so be prepared

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really a problem with mike? I would think that the table would cover up his belly hanging out of the bottom of his t-shirt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess not /images/graemlins/smile.gif

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
If mike is coming, I might too. Let me ask the warden tomorrow.

I'm planning to fold pocket aces preflops and ditto the nuts on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

I'll do my best to make this happen. The big thing is you will have to come early to sign up on the "Live at Bike" board. Tell that to the warden /images/graemlins/smile.gif

~ Rick

PS Luv to see you guys on Saturday even though I'll be mostly working the NL section and may not have much time to get together.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's supposed to be a 20/40 this Saturday. Come early to sign up. BTW, I think we might institute a dress code so be prepared."

ill dress nice but im not going to show up early because my pal rick is going to get me on the list so im sure to have a seat remember?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come the way you are. And show up early and sign up on the board. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

~ Rick

[andyfox]

What time is "early"? And what time does the game start?

Thanks,
Andy

[mike l.]

"Come the way you are. And show up early and sign up on the board.'

and what will i do in the meanwhile..

well i guess i could drive over to commerce.. and then come back..

the invite was for you to get me on the list and then i show up in my limo at 530. if you can actually get me in the game let me know. i dont do come early; im mike l.

[snakehead]

in the stud game, some players ante up their friend after they win a pot. the good players are more than willing to do this with those that aren't so good.

one day I got a big fish to offer a different system to one of the best players in the game. I told him it would be more fun if when he lost a pot, the other player would ante for him and vice versa. you should have seen the look on the pro's face when the fish asked him to try it this way.

the point is that players who play more hands win more pots and therefore pay more rake than tight old men like andy. but they also lose a lot more hands which is why their stacks are alway going down.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
What time is "early"? And what time does the game start?

Thanks,
Andy

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to be there by 2:00pm hosting NL. The 20/40 limit holdem "Live at Bike" game probably starts around 4:00pm to 5:00 pm. You need to sign up on the "Live at Bike" board beforehand though.

Hope you can make it early as you can, there may be a long list /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,

Rick

[AngryCola]

Are you actually still listening to what Russ has to say?
I don't mean to me a jerk here, but why?

I'm confused by your fascination with the biggest RGP troll ever known to man.

You also continue to post links to his site.

Why?

[elindauer]

The LOOSE players pay the rake. Typically, these are the losers.

[andyfox]

Hey, I was hoping he'd put me on the list, not you.

Then again, if we took a vote, and let people decide who they'd prefer to see play in the game, I'm betting you beat me on the order of 100:1. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you actually still listening to what Russ has to say?
I don't mean to me a jerk here, but why?

I'm confused by your fascination with the biggest RGP troll ever known to man.

You also continue to post links to his site.

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

no need to be confused. don't worry about it.

i just found his comment on poker theory books interesting. i also did'nt start this thread; however, it was started in part from my thread in the WPT forum.

[ike]

This one really isn't that hard guys. The players who win the most hands pay the most rake. In a game where the morons are weak/tight and the winners are bowling them over and winning way more than their share of pots, the winners are paying the rake. In general, in full games at least, its the tighter players who are winning though, so the bad/loose players pay there.