Question about "beating the rake"

[UATrewqaz]

Say you deposit $200 at PP, play for along while and win $500, so your bankroll is $700, but according to your PT the rake you've paid is $600.

You've paid more in rake than you have in winnings, which sucks ass of course, but technically you are still "winning".

This would not be beating the rake I take it? The reason I ask is because at .5/1 my winnings always stay barely above my rake paid (according to PT). The other limits I've played at my winnings are well above the rake.

[silkyslim]

I dont get why this matters, you are paying to be able to play with donks, and at .5/1 you want to learn and move up. If you won $500, that is above and beyond the rake you paid. so just move up to a limit where the rake is not so influential.

[UATrewqaz]

I have the roll for 2/4, I just don't have the emotionally stability.

And the amazing thing is I'm far from poor, I just like am one of those "smart" people who doesn't like to throw away money on stupid stuff. Aka if I take my $1500 roll and play 2/4 and it dips under 1000 I'll be saying "why didn't you just stop when you had $1500)

I guess that goes to the heart of the matter, playing for fun or for real money. Right now I just enjoy playing and winning, even if it's taking quarters off of retards at .5/1. Eventually I would like to make "real" money but until I feel comfortable I think it's better for me to play low.

I did just move up to 1/2 though, only about 1K hands so far but at 5.6 BB/100 so, at least so far so good.

I was just curious as to what defines "beating" or "losing" to the rake.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just curious as to what defines "beating" or "losing" to the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gross winnings > rake

or

Net winnings > 0

Since PT automatically calculates winnings net of rake, as long as the BB/100 it gives you is a positive number, you are beating the rake.

[2+2 wannabe]

beating the rake is when you actually make money taking the rake into consideration

so if you put 500 into a site, and take out 600, but pay 300 in rake, you are still "beating the rake" (as you are making money taking rake into consideration) - net +$100

[DavidC]

If you take home cash, over the long term, you've beaten both your opponents and the rake.

Now for the scary part:

Let's say they rake 0.5 per hand over the course of 50 hands an hour (actual results, this should be fairly accurate).

They just raked $25 (25 BB) from the player pool. Because it was over about 50 hands, they're raking 50BB/100 from the table.

average that out, -5/100 per player.

Meaning that if you get +2bb/100, then you're distributing an additional -7bb onto someone else, per 100 hands.

If there's 2 sharks making 2/100, one kinda sharky, but kinda not-so-sharky guy making 1/100, and two guys that are break even...

That leaves 5 guys losing between them the 25/100, plus the winnings of the good players (5bb/100).

Each of them are at something like -6/100 hands.

It's absolutely amazing how much of a punishment the fish take while we scratch out meager earnings. It's even more amazing how much of a punishment the rake is on the poker community as a whole. The online sites have it great: not as high costs + same rake = lots of money.

This should also point out why it's really important not to tap the glass. Also, the higher you go through the limits, and the faster you get there, the better it is on your bankroll.

The only thing is, while the rake drops as a % of pot, the opposition gets tougher and your edge drops, so it kinda levels out.

Anyways, if you're one of the guys at 0/100 or higher, you're "beating the rake".

--Dave.

[shadow29]

If you take that number in PT and add the rake to it, that's how much you would have won presuming no rake.

[kapw7]

If you want to pay less rake (as a proportion) play 2/4 and higher.
If you don't want to risk then poker is not for you. Keep playing 0.5/1 and don't complain about the rake. You still make a profit.

[UATrewqaz]

I had been beating .5/1 for about 1 BB/100 then began studying 2+2 books and reading ont his forum and that number jumped to 3.6 BB/100 for the past 8K hands. I've moved on to 1/2 (my bankroll grew faster than my skills, as is common I think) and as long as I'm still winning I'm happy. I'll get to 2/4 eventually I just want a crazy big roll to do it (I move up when I have 600BB, opposed to the "standard" 300).

[benkath1]

Smart thinking. Nuttin wrong with that! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[silkyslim]

ok, i got a solution. I'll just invite 70,000 people to my house (you guys are all invited), and we'll play some rake free poker. All i ask is that you take off your shoes

[Jaran]

Do you have snacks?

-Jaran

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have snacks?

-Jaran

[/ QUOTE ]

We could build him a cake or something.

[benkath1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have snacks?

-Jaran

[/ QUOTE ]

We could build him a cake or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I broke my hip falling out of my chair.

[kapw7]

You can beat the rake at 200/400. $3 per $8,000 or something. You can also lose your house.

[Jaran]

Don't worry. Silky told me his house is up to OSHA specs, so we can get your broken down ass in to play.

-Jaran

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
Say you deposit $200 at PP, play for along while and win $500, so your bankroll is $700, but according to your PT the rake you've paid is $600.

You've paid more in rake than you have in winnings, which sucks ass of course, but technically you are still "winning".

This would not be beating the rake I take it? The reason I ask is because at .5/1 my winnings always stay barely above my rake paid (according to PT). The other limits I've played at my winnings are well above the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the posters who claim your share of the rake effectively lowers your EV by -5 BB/100 (versus if there were no rake at all). It is pretty insane when you think about it, if you are eeking out 2.5 BB/100, the house is making double that just by you occupying a seat.

This leads to a very obvious topic of rakeback/bonus whoring. If you are playing without some sort of kickback, you are a bigger donkey than most donators at the table. Some bonuses are so good that they are effectively 200% rakeback, yes you saw that correct. The EV of the best bonuses I play are +10BB/100 (before subtracting the -5BB/100 for rake), meaning I can play break-even or even slightly losing poker and still be +EV. Head over to Bonuswhores.com some time, and everyone over there bases their game on this exact philosophy: trying to play break-even poker while collecting +EV bonuses.

The downside of bonuses is that you have to understand how to clear them most efficiently. Sometimes you have a time limit, sometimes you have to make a deposit with a bonus code, sometimes you have to put in so many hands or so many dollars in rake. It varies site by site and you must understand the intracacies of every bonus that you play. Also, not all bonuses are equal. Some totally suck and some totally rock. It isn't always obvious which are which. The best bonus whores know which pimps treat them the best.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with the posters who claim your share of the rake effectively lowers your EV by -5 BB/100 (versus if there were no rake at all). It is pretty insane when you think about it, if you are eeking out 2.5 BB/100, the house is making double that just by you occupying a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true. You may not be paying an equal share of the rake as the other guys. There's a number of ways to look at who exactly pays the rake.

One way is to say that everyone pays an equal share of the hourly rake.

Another is to say that every player pays an equal share of the rake in any given pot that he enters (therefore you just look at VPIP to determine who's paying the rake).

Another is to say that whoever contributes the most to a pot contributes the same ammount of rake.

Another (and most accurate, but hardest to deal with, IMOH) is to say that the players pay rake based on their equity in the hand as it develops.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the posters who claim your share of the rake effectively lowers your EV by -5 BB/100 (versus if there were no rake at all). It is pretty insane when you think about it, if you are eeking out 2.5 BB/100, the house is making double that just by you occupying a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno where you're getting these numbers from. According to PT, my rake over 20k hands at .5/1 is only about 2.8BB/100. I doubt any winning player pays 5BB/100 unless you're talking B&M.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I agree with the posters who claim your share of the rake effectively lowers your EV by -5 BB/100 (versus if there were no rake at all). It is pretty insane when you think about it, if you are eeking out 2.5 BB/100, the house is making double that just by you occupying a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily true. You may not be paying an equal share of the rake as the other guys. There's a number of ways to look at who exactly pays the rake.

One way is to say that everyone pays an equal share of the hourly rake.

Another is to say that every player pays an equal share of the rake in any given pot that he enters (therefore you just look at VPIP to determine who's paying the rake).

Another is to say that whoever contributes the most to a pot contributes the same ammount of rake.

Another (and most accurate, but hardest to deal with, IMOH) is to say that the players pay rake based on their equity in the hand as it develops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I actually just went over my last 4k hands and added the actual rake pulled from pots that I collected. It's closer to -3 BB/100 for my particular style, which attempts to match the tight-aggressive advice of SSHE. With my previous number of -5 BB/100, I just took the gross rake paid when I saw cards divided by the average number of players seeing cards. I guess the fish really are paying more rake than me! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[benkath1]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't worry. Silky told me his house is up to OSHA specs, so we can get your broken down ass in to play.

-Jaran

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll know I'm there when the short bus rounds the corner!!

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the fish really are paying more rake than me! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I've paid 4.33BB/100 and I'm not a fish

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the posters who claim your share of the rake effectively lowers your EV by -5 BB/100 (versus if there were no rake at all). It is pretty insane when you think about it, if you are eeking out 2.5 BB/100, the house is making double that just by you occupying a seat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno where you're getting these numbers from. According to PT, my rake over 20k hands at .5/1 is only about 2.8BB/100. I doubt any winning player pays 5BB/100 unless you're talking B&M.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, how did you come up with 2.8BB/100 in PT? I had to go through "game notes", sort by "net" and count up the individual rake per pot. I actually did an intelligent estimate to come up with my 3BB/100. I'm 95% confident I'm within .25BB/100, my estimate was a little on the high side. It would be awesome if there was an easier way to figure this out! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

On a totally unrelated note, how do "professionals" come up with the magic number of trying to beat a game to the tune of 2.5BB/100. It seems like a pretty standard number I have seen. It seems interesting that it is close to the BB/100 that professionals are probably paying in rake to the house.

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to PT, my rake over 20k hands at .5/1 is only about 2.8BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, how did you come up with 2.8BB/100 in PT? I had to go through "game notes", sort by "net" and count up the individual rake per pot. I actually did an intelligent estimate to come up with my 3BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under "General Info", take your "total rake" number for the limit in question and divide by "total hands" to get your average rake per hand.

From there, you just multiply by whatever 1BB is for your limit, and divide by 100, to get it in BB/100.