Why tight when there's a rake?

[Ralle]

You often read that if the pot is raked, you should play tighter. The reason given is usually that you pay less rake if you win few but big pots. That doesn't make sense. I agree that you'd want to play a little tighter because the pot size is reduced by the rake, but the reduction is a percentage of the pot size, so whether the pot is big or small wouldn't make a difference (unless of course you reach the maximum rake).

If you win $100 before rake against five opponents all the way in each pot, the total 5%-rake will be $6 regardless of how many pots it took to get there.

What you would like, however, is to have lots of opponents against you. If instead of the five opponents above, you only have one opponent all the way and win $100 before rake in any number of pots, the total rake will rise to $10. This would seem to indicate that you'd like to win lots of small pots aginast lots of opponents. Actually the key is to keep the ratio between the pot size and your investment down in order to minimize the rake.

[Punker]

When there's a rake, the table as a whole will be paying $x per hour in rake. By playing tighter than average, you ensure that you will be paying less than your fair share of that $x.

What you'd like to do is win a very few very big pots where the rake is maxed out in terms of dollars so that it starts decreasing terms of percentage size of the pot. If you win 10 $20 pots, you will pay a lot more rake than if you win one $200 pot.

[Ralle]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
What you'd like to do is win a very few very big pots where the rake is maxed out in terms of dollars so that it starts decreasing terms of percentage size of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, maybe it all comes down to different house rules. In the $4/8 game I play, the rake is 5% up to a maximum of $20. This means that the rake is almost always exactly 5%. And then it doesn't matter if you win a few big or a lot of small pots.

However, you'd still prefer to win pots with lots of opponents than with fewer, even if the winnings before rake is the same.

[SoBeDude]

Oh My!

a $20 max rake on a 4-8 game? good lord!

thats horrible!

[ChipWrecked]

Took the words right out of my mouth. That is theft. Play online!

[**MR.MANHATTAN**]

lucky there aint no guns in sweden,i'd stik that game up one night for sure........f'n thieve cocksuckers...makes me mad to hear it. dont play there u fool.....i'd rob em till they closed.

[Robk]

Hey Ralle, think about this in terms of expectations. Every poker hand you play before the flop has a certain expectation that depends on the circumstances. For instance, AA has an (average) EV of about 4 times the blinds, according to most people. But consider a hand like J9s, UTG. This hand may well be a +EV hand for you in a time charge game, with an EV perhaps of .1 BB. But if the rake exceeds the EV, as it clearly does in your monstrously absurd game, then this hand is a loser, and hence should be folded preflop. So you are playing tighter. Or say you feel that 3 betting a particular player with AQ is a close decision. If the game is raked, this may swing you to a fold, etc.

[rkiray]

Yeah,

From what I've heard rakes in Europe are insane. In the USA max rakes tend to range from $2-$6 (both endpoints extreme). I've also heard that there is more or less mandatory tipping in Europe that is much higher than in the US. I can't belive there are any pros in Europe given these two facts (unless I'm just a stupid American and am misinformed).

Rick

[cpk]

The rake is a tax on the pot. This compromises your odds. Since you essentially have a uniform 5% rake (yuk!), you should look at it like this. Let's say you limp into a pot with 4 other people. This makes a pot of $20. But the house is now going to cut $1 out of the pot. So you really aren't getting your full 4:1 pot odds--you're only getting 3.75:1.

OK, so what? While some hands (like the obvious AA) are very powerful and obviously profitable in any situation, others (like 34s) have profitability only in certain positions and even then only marginally.

A good example would be a hand like 44. It is a hot-and-cold 20.6% winner against 4 opponents. This makes it a very marginal favorite. If you won your theoretical fair share, you would come out slightly ahead:

EV=4(.206)-1(.794)=0.03

[Actually, you wouldn't, because of something called the "Horse Race Paradox," but we're going for simplicity here.]

But because of the rake, now your poor 44 is a loser:

EV=3.75(.206)-1(.794)=-0.02

So you have to dump your 44 against just 4 opponents (you want more so you get the odds to flop a set) unless there's some special consideration like being on the button (where the positional advantage offsets some of the weakness of your hand).

And this is why the rake forces you to tighten up. The vast majority of hands are neither big winners nor big losers, but right on the edge. The size of the rake, the number of people seeing the flop, the amount of preflop raising, and the overall skill of your opponents determines whether these hands are ultimately profitable or not.

[gavrilo]

$20 max rake in a $4-8 game.. please tell me this is a joke?

[TobDog]

As far as the tighter when raked theory, I always looked at is as each pot is raked(we'll assume) I would rather win 4 large pots (with say $5 rake, $20 in tax) than 10 pots slightly smaller with the same rake ($50 in tax). We don;t always have control over what we get to play with, which cards, but by minimizing your taxes(playing tight) you have a better chance of keeping as much of the money as possible.

[Ralle]

Lol. From some of the responses it seems that the $20 max is high. I suppose you're correct. But the game is still very profitable.

Unfortunately there aren't many casinos to choose from up here, but they also spread a $10/20-game I've played in a few times where the rake is 5% with a $20 maximum. That's a little better of course. Actually they have the $20 maximum regardless of the betting limits.

One thing that makes the game a little cheaper here in Sweden is that tipping is not allowed. (That is, you tip the waitresses, but you can't tip the dealers.) In the rest of Europe, however, they do tip the dealers, as I understand it.

[ChipWrecked]

So some of the rake goes to pay the dealers, but $20 still seems oppressively high.