A Telling Statistic

[David Sklansky]

For those who don't believe that 90% of poker players lose, consider this: You make $20 an hour in a ninehanded 10-20 game. That's three thousand bucks average at the end of the month. Afterwards, you approach all the players who have played against you during that month and ask how they did during the time you were in the game. Their total loss will come to not three grand, but rather more like twenty one grand! (assuming 150 hours where the house rakes $120 an hour). In other words, the eight other seats had to lose an average of over $2600 EACH for you to win your measly 3K.

[Billy LTL]

I keep trying to spread the message but nobody will listen. Cultivate a good stable of home games. It ain't rocket science. Billy

[Mikey]

From what I see and what I hear it looks to me that 90% of poker players lose.....and about 5% win, the rest I think break even.

[Dentist]

That's why I really don't play for long term monetary gain.

It's a game, a competition and I enjoy competing.

Poker has great stories, and it is interesting to watch people.

I like the game, and as long as I know I'm playing well and getting better, breaking even or making a few bucks is fine by me.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Dave,
Not knowing what the casino's overhead looks like... I'd say it sounds like we all ought to be campaigning for lower rakes.

Sincerely,
AA

[sucka]

I agree. I've always thought that it was interesting how when the game got bigger the more rake they took. Imagine how that would fly at a BJ or Craps table? If a player was making $5 bets at a table the house gives itself a 1% advantage and if you started playing $20 bets then the house raises it's advantage against you to 3 or 4%. Pit bosses and casino managers would be getting lynched everywhere.

Somehow though, in poker it seems OK to do. It's the same game and the dealer deals the same cards....

I have long thought that in most LL caisno poker games it's nearly impossible to beat the rake in the long run.

It's difficult enough to grind out 1BB per hour anyway. Then you have to fight with the house who's taking roughly a BB away from you per hour for the rake and you really have to beat the game twice as hard to make half the profit.

I guess it makes the argument for playing even a little higher more compelling.

I agree with Dentist though - I'm not playing right now for much of anything other than to enjoy myself and learning to play this game and get better. The competetion is nice as well and as far as gambling goes - even fighting the rake a decent player has as good or better of a chance of taking a profit out of a poker room than any of the other boneheads plunking quarters into slot machines for hours at a time.

[bad beetz]

unfortunately, casinos have no incentive to lower rake. the players don't "see" the impact as our instinct is to be near sighted.

In the bay area casinos have found that they're better off raking MORE so they can offer huge bad beat jackpots of 70K+ that you will never hit because you don't play enough hands.

That's MY MONEY going to LOOSE STUPID players. same with straight flush and quad payout schedules. You play more hands because you suck? You win more jackpot money on average. Not fair.

They should have a "you made a really good laydown" bonus or something.

[RockLobster]

I'm not a business expert or anything, but I'm still surprised that casinos offer as much poker as they do. A hold'em table requires a fair amount of space, and they only get roughly $60 / hour for that valuable space ($2.00 rake for 30 hands, probably a pretty fair average). Oh yeah, and this requires an employee (dealer) working at all times. They clearly don't make nearly as much per square foot as they do with just about any other game. It's more like an expected service, so they bite the bullet and spread poker.

I'd love to see lower rakes, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

[KDF]

I was thinking 'the slowplay jackpot'. "Boy, you really fooled them with that middle set, here's $10,000 bucks!"

or, the 'best bluff jackpot', "he folded his straight for one bet and all you had was Q high?...here's $10,000 bucks!"

I particularly like 'the calling station jackpot.' "You haven't raised or folded since you sat down, and you still manage to play every hand...here's $10,000 bucks!"

Or...the 'runner, runner jackpot', "DING_DING_DING_DING!!...that's the 10th time you've made your hand with the last two cards, here's a $10,000 bucks. And-- you win the super bonus for having otherwise zero outs every time! Here's another $20,000!

I like the ones that pay the fish better. They happen more often and it would keep the money flowing, just like the real jackpots that only the 'loose stupid players' usually win. You have to feed the fish somehow. The rake does suck though. IMHO /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[TobDog]

I think the only way we are going to ever see lower rakes is for someone(a casino) to step up and make public they are lowering their rake, which has to draw customers away from other casinos and the others will follow, but I am not holding my breath for this.

For a group that spends a lot of $ each year in the casino, poker players are not treated to all the free things that the high rollers get. Again, something I do not expect to change any time soon either.

[chaos]

The bad beat jackpot makes money for the card room. The house keeps a good part of every jackpot dollar collected to compensate them for running the jackpot. This may be as high as 50 cents on the dollar.

[brad]

yes i think in arizona its like 24 or 26% or whatever.

btw, they changed the rake in low limit from 3 + 2 jackpot to a more modest 1 dollar jackpot drop + 4 dollars rake.

[jake-free]

how about the rake playing online?
can we overcome?, or it's to much?

[TobDog]

I have found the rake online to be very modest, at all limits, it is most favorable to those who play low. I remember playing a 1-2 in LA a year ago with some friends and they raked like $1.50 + .50jp, it is unreal and I think anyone would have a hard time overcoming that, but online the rake is proportinal to the size of the pot and has a max that is lower than in the casinos, the shorthanded tables is even lower. I think I saw the biggest game at UB like 80-160 has a max rake of .50 or $1, that is a great deal. The rake online is much more sensitive to the lower limit players than in a casino I think mainly because on a website, there is not much labor after it is up and running. Inside a casino, there still must be so many people working at all hours it does cost more to employ those people, and offer food and drinks, and pay the utilities, etc.

[Mikey]

I don't remeber asking you a GOD DAMM THING....

[RockLobster]

I don't remeber asking you a GOD DAMM THING....

I'm not sure if everyone understands the reference, but that's OK...
/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

EDIT: Included Mikey's quote. For those of you keeping score at home, this is a Pulp Fiction reference (my signature normally includes quotes from this outstanding movie).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

It's less about overhead than opportunity cost. Every square foot of the casino that does not have a slot machine is probably underperforming from a $/sq. ft. perspective.

[brad]

but i dont understand that argument since they have showrooms and giftshops and stuff like that. i mean, how hard is it to add on some space.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Correctamundo!

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm sure they have business analysts that have calculated the percentage of winnings/comps spent back at the shops in the casino. Poker probably survives because there is a percentage payback from both tournament and regular players who also suck up some of the marginal empty rooms at off-peak times. It's probably like most businesses. Every profit-center keeps digging to show marginal dollars produced that contribute to the bottom line.

[brad]

but i dont get it, unless every single slot machine is taken, (ie, people wanting to play slots who cant get in) what does it matter?

btw, except maybe for a few hours fri/sat nights (and not even then), ive never seen slots all jammed up where you couldnt get in if you wanted to play.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Rock Lobster,
In Vegas style casino's, other than say the Steve Wynn, or Binion's casino's that's exactly the attitude pit management has.

Poker's sort of an "also ran" game. It's usually got separate management, and even the dealer's tips are handled differently. (Pit games, tips are pooled and divided, poker the tips are usually yours individually.)

Sincerely,
AA

[AmericanAirlines]

So perhaps what we need is are card rooms funded by the players themselves in some sort of collective run simply to break even. Or perhaps run like a Country Club or trading floor.

Don't know exactly how you'd organize it to prevent corruption of one sort or another though.

Sincerely,
AA

[KDF]

Not to argue, but to clarify /forums/images/icons/grin.gif ..."...I think mainly because on a website, there is not much labor after it is up and running"

I work in this field (not poker, but website administration) This is incorrect. Websites do not auto-run. All of the work and costs involved in running a website (including but not limited to: hosting, hardware, networking, software-development, testing, troubleshooting, security, financial transactions and more) are not small nor cheap. If you compare the tasks needed at a B&M establishment and the tasks involved at an online facility, you will find there are more tasks to do online. This doesn't mean more employees per say, but there are comparative trade-offs between the two types.

I think the rake is lower because the online site will (or should) have more customers and hands per hour than a B&M. For example: Paradise has consistently had 2200- 2800 players online between 6pm-12am EST over the last few weeks. No B&M card room in the world could handle this volume. And, they average about 60+ hands an hour as opposed to 30 at a B&M. Twice as many hands, 5-10 times as many players, unlimited tables= buku dollars. Therefore; they can afford a much cheaper rake.

The games are tougher though, even at the lower limits; so that’s the player’s trade-off: cheaper rake, tougher games. IMHO

[RockLobster]

Thanks for the info, AA.

I've never been to Vegas, I hope to get there in the next year or two... I'll let the forum know when I'm coming, how much I've got to lose, and where I'll be making donations. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[sucka]

One of the most telling stats I came up with to describe to a new poker player how poweful the rake cane be is to describe it in terms he could relate with.

I explained to him that at a $3/6 game most players buy-in for $100. Let's say the game is 10 handed.

The house deals ~35 hands per hour and with a $4 max rake let's say the average is $3. So, the house takes $105 off the table per hour.

In short - the house TAKES ONE PLAYERS ENTIRE BUY IN OFF THE TABLE PER HOUR!

This in a LL game. Of course, as you move up these numbers become a little less significant. I recall Dynasty saying in a previous post that the Mirage 20/40 game was one of the best deals in Vegas - according to him they rake it at 10% to $4 max as well. That's beans compared to how heavy that is at the lower limit games.

It amazes me how players pay little or no attention to that. I like playing at the lower limits but usually consider playing a little higher just because the rake is such a bitch down there.

[ChipWrecked]

One room I play at rakes max $3, plus $1 jackpot drop (no flop, no drop). The other rakes $4 plus $1, rake is dropped regardless of whether the hand is played. However the high rake place offers free food and cheap drinks to those inclined to drink at the table. It is a popular place to come play a few hands and have lunch. I think the smaller rake is the better value, but at least the higher place is trying to provide some value (and the food's pretty good).

"Just because you are a character, doesn't mean you have character."

[Louie Landale]

But if 2 of you make your 1bb/hour then the others only need to lose $3000 each, which isn't much more than your $2600. If you routinely get a real bone-head who comes in for quarter of a month, loses $4000, and then gets replaced by another bone head (that is, one seat loses $16000 per month), then the 7 remaining players only have to lose less than $1200 each; plenty of room for a 3rd 1bb/hour winner.
And I'll bet there are quite a lot of players eaking out a trivial win over the course of a long time, and so don't qualify as "losers".

If you want to say "90% make less than 1bb/hour" I may agree, but to say that "90% lose" is a bit much for me.

- Louie

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi R.L.
I guess I should make a clarification here. Every Vegas style casino I know anything about generally has the pit and poker separated, and the tipping is as stated.

But the attitude of poker being second string, and the players being "the fleas of gaming" as one person put it, is less prevalent at the Wynn properties and Binions. (Which *I* believe to be related to who thier owners are. Last I knew Chip Reese was mgmt at Bellagio. But couldn't prove it, just heard it.)

Sincerely,
AA

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi KDF,
I come from the mainframe side if IT. I've always argued that decentralized was more expensive because of the human costs and more points of failure. Sounds like you know it to be true.

Even so, I think an average Joe is more likely to be able to come up with the startup costs for an online poker room than a B & M one, wouldn't you say? I mean it's software and Intel servers, true?

As you point out the technology must have awesome leverage because of the number of folks that can be served per dollar.

I think it's a crime that US laws don't let us US citizens get in on that rake!

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. I believe it's "beaucoup dollars"... from the french language.

:-)

[**MR.MANHATTAN**]

horse tracks take 18%off the top.....lol

[**MR.MANHATTAN**]

i remember a lot of home games where all the players are broke and are looking around at the guy who raked the game,for a loan! @ 20% hahahahahaah........the service and protection most of u kids take for granted isof great value. trust me. its a bargain...at twice the rake. /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mr. M:

There is a big difference. Horse racing is a non-ante game. That is if you choose not to bet a race it doesn't cost anything. In poker, if you choose not to play a hand, you're still down the ante.

Best wishes,
Mason

[RockLobster]

I began tracking my online sessions recently, and after 682 LL hands I found the following:
- Total win $32.75 (after rake)
- Total rake $16.50

This really amazed me. Remember, this is online (low rakes and no tokes to dealers or waitresses). A third of my total winnings went to the house.

I've been playing fairly well, I can now see how it is easy to lose money at this game, even if you do play decent poker. This stat reinforced that you have to bring your "A game" with you each time you sit down to play, or don't bother playing at all.

EDIT: tried to clarify that total win $ was AFTER rake had been taken.

[sucka]

Even more telling...

I just played a quick simulated 13 hours at $6/12 with $4 max rake on TTH against a decent 10 handed lineup.

In 13 hours 400 hands or so were dealt and $1,272 was raked off the table.

I was up $194 and paid $86 for rake and $24 for tips ($1 per pot) for $110 total for service charges. Ugh.

Now this wouldn't even include the $5-10 I'd pay for waitress tips, etc... if I were in a B&M.

Just goes to show you that even the rake at a low-mid limit game, while beatable, can definitely take its toll.

[RockLobster]

[sucka]

Yup, you think about playing a $6/12 game with 10 players all starting with a $500 buy-in. In a 6 hour session the house will rake one players ENTIRE buy-in.

Crazy stuff.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Mason,
I beg to differ, if you sit on the rail it costs you nothing... same as a horse race.

You've chosen to play when you sit down and accept the cards... so payment is expected.

Sincerely,
AA

[sucka]

This really amazed me. Remember, this is online (low rakes and no tokes to dealers or waitresses). A third of my total winnings went to the house.

No doubt!

It's a real testament to those who can beat LL casino games, that's for sure.

In my example playing $6/12 slightly less than 50% of my winnings were raked or used as tokes to the dealer.

For the good players that are playing to make any money at this game it definitely worth playing as high as they can to feel less of the rake.

In that $6/12 example it cost me ~$5 when I won a pot. That doesn't SOUND like a lot of money until you factor that into your hourly rate.

I played 13 (simulated) hours and won 25 pots. I think that's about average - 2 pots per hour. It cost me $10 an hour to 'play' to beat a game where the BB is $12.

You take these same figures and apply them to a 20/40 game and the rake is so minuscule that it really doesn't even matter much. Instead of the amount being raked per hand being nearly equivalent to an entire small bet - it's a mere fraction of a small bet and doesn't hurt near as much.

I know the term 'beating the game for a BB per hour' includes overcoming the rake. But it's interesting to think that you really have to beat a $6/12 game for $22 an hour to earn $12 an hour. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

[RockLobster]

This is an enlightening thread for me. Playing LL (.50/$1) online (PartyPoker), the rake is $.50 for $5.00, $1.00 for $20. This looks so innocent. I win a $12.00 pot, the house takes $.50, no big deal. But to see that, over time, the house ends up with a third (or more) of my winnings, now THAT was unexpected.

I am now beginning to understand what is meant by overcoming the rake. Now I just need to get good enough to do this at higher limits. (I think I can, I think I can...)

Thanks for your input, Sucka.

[**MR.MANHATTAN**]

hi mr.m,i sort of understand where you are hjeaded. for most people though ,they pay admission,program cost,etc.I understand u r in a casino...so no admission but u buy a program,tip the valet etc....so if i win 60$ in a poker game the vig was 3$ ,im not being argumentive because you forgot more math then i'll ever know. but on the seat of my pants i'd say that it takes a 63$ pot for me to win 60.......and it takes ?? me 70 to win 60 at the track??? im saying it is cheaper to play poker than the ponys?...amer. airlines disagreed w/u so that threw me off.Any time i read something of yours,it confuses me more when people dispute u. I dont know who to believe...i go by the seat of my pants. I like to play names ,#s and clors now,form be dammed.....hahahahaha.. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[sucka]

Any time i read something of yours,it confuses me more when people dispute u.

What?

Hey Manhattan - no offence man but if you want people to take your posts seriously you should consider using some punctuation, spell some words out and try to not speak in tounges. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Tommy Angelo]

All,

It is not quite sensible to compare rake stats (rate or amount) to win stats (rate or amount). What if after some number of hands, we paid $40 in rake, and our win was forty cents? Would we say, "Look! The rake is 100 times more than my winnings! Oh no!"

Related: How many times have any of us lost $400 at poker, and had on the top of our minds, "Man, if not for that dang rake, I would have only lost $360."

Less related: When I play poker at B&M casinos, I don't keep track of hoursly rates of anything. But if I played online, the stat I would want to know, first, is the hourly expense.

So, just what is the hourly rake per player per table at some of the microlimits? Now you got me curious!

Tommy

[eMarkM]

I have 175 hours playing 2/4 on PP. I've paid $713.16 in rake. That's $4.07 or a BB/hr.

I have 169 hours playing 3/6. I've paid $1207.83 in rake or $7.14/hr or 1.2 BB/hr.

I have 175 hours of 5/10. I've paid $2403.50 in rake for $13.73/hr or 1.3 BB hr.

I have 52 hours of 20/40. I've paid $1038 in rake for $19.96/hour or 1 BB/hr.

All stats from PokerStat. I'll double check my numbers later.

[Tommy Angelo]

eMarkM,

Thanks. When I used to play online, it really bothered me, not knowing what it cost to play in the various games. And the answer was so simple. One BB/hour.

Tommy

[sucka]

OK, maybe I'm missing something here...

How is it possible that one is paying more rake in a bigger game when both games are raked the same?

Example - $3/6 and $6/12 and even $10/20 in most casino's (at least the ones I've played in) have the same rake - usually 10% to $4 max.

How is it possible that you continue to pay 1BB per hour in rake in all 3 of those games??

[ninthyaga]

Probably for a few reasons...

1) In the higher limits, the rake hits the $4 max more often.
2) People usually play faster in the higher limits, leading to more pots raked per hour.
3) Low-limit games are usually full. This is not the case for higher limits which can be routinely played short-handed. In short-handed pots, you stand to win more pots per hour which means you get exposed to the chop more often.

[eMarkM]

I made a mistake on that post that was corrected in the "online rake analysis" thread I started. 20/40 s/b 0.5BB/hr not 1. So it does make a big difference at the higher limits.