Rake Deduction from Pot Odds

[LesWormMurphy]

Having just read a post somewhere, something caught my attention that makes some sense. Somebody posted a hand of his and paranthesized his rake deduction from the bets counted. So his post looked something like:

3.5 Small Bets (-.5 because of rake)

I never even considered deducting the rake from the size of the pot but thinking about it now, it does make sense. If money is being taken away from the pot, and your still counting it, doesn't that change your pot odds? For example, with the pot laying at 10.5-to-1, you decide to call for your gutshot chase.. but really, the pot is at 8.5-to-1 because the rake took away money.

Some help is greatly needed,
Thanks.

[jrz1972]

Most sites remove the rake as the hand goes along, not at the very end. That means that the pot size shown is net of the rake and is correct for making your pot odds calculations. The only exception is when the current round of betting is going to trigger additional rake, in which case there aren't as many new dollars going into the pot as it appears, but thats almost never a big enough deal to make a difference in your decision making.

[LesWormMurphy]

What about B&M?

[jrz1972]

I've only played B&M a grand total of twice, but both placed I played removed the rake as they went along.

I should be honest here and admit that I never bothered to count the pot though. It was enough for me to just have a general idea of whether the pot was big or small. If I were going to play B&M regularly this is a habit I would need to break out of, but since I only play that way when I'm on vacation in Vegas, I would rather just relax.

[LesWormMurphy]

So would I be correct if from now on whenever I attended a B&M, I would count the pot, then subtract whatever amount of bets the dealer moved to the rake?

That seems to make sense, and I hope it's that simple a solution.