Good Information on Rake?

[EagerApprentice]

Can someone please point me in the direction of a book section or article that details effects of the rake on an hourly EV? I am trying to gain an understanding of how a higher-lower rake or time charge really effects my long-term results.

Thanks a bunch! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Copernicus]

Sklansky gives brief mention to it in Theory of Poker. However, the best way to determine its effect on your game is to use PokerTracker or similar software (if you are playing online). It helps analyze your whole game, of course, but also includes exactly how much rake you paid on each winning hand (and corresponding totals of course) so you can determine its effect on your results.

It is more difficult in B&M, although just counting the number of hands you win times the max rake for that stakes wont be far off. (Adjusting the number of hands won down by uncalled hands or blinds stolen/won would be even better.) Of course dont forget to add your standard tips to the rake, since they have the same effect.

[Steve-o]

Can you be a long-term winner in a lower limit poker game?

To solve this riddle we must first establish what constitutes a long term winning player.

#1 at least 500 hours logged at the tables. This is the same as needing 500 at bats to qualify for the batting title in baseball. You wouldn’t consider someone who was 1 for 1 all season as your batting champion. Likewise you cannot consider someone who won $100 in 3 hours of a $3/$6 hold em game a long-term winner.

#2 A win rate of 1 big bet per hour. Regardless of the limit this is considered by most to be the industry standard. But as I’m about to show you this can be very misleading to a new player, as most players will need to beat the game for far more than 1 big bet per hour to be a winner.

Now that we have established what it takes to be considered a winning player lets take a look at a typical $4/$8 hold em game. We’ll say there are 10 players and each of them have bought in for $120, if we minus your stake there is $1,080 up for grabs on the table, surely you can get a good piece of that in the 5 hours you are planning on playing. But not so fast there you’re playing an average of 25 hands an hour and the house is taking a $4 rake from each pot. After 5 hours that $1,200 that was on the table is down to $700. No problem, we minus your stake and there is still $580 up for grabs, right? Hold on one more thing I forgot to take into account, TIPS! Now lets assume that of those 25 hands an hour 20 of them are good enough to warrant a tip. We will also assume that another $5 an hour is making its way from the table’s felt to the waitress’s tray. Taking all this into account our table now has $575 on it, and after we minus our original stake of $120 this table that once had $1,080 ripe for the picking is down to $455. Writing this article has made me realize I really want to open a card room.

Now onto the second part (that’s right I’m not done depressing you just yet.) lets look at how much you will need to win to offset the rake and tips you will be paying.

Every hour the dealers are taking $100 in rake off of the table, which comes out to $10 per person per hour. I won’t go into detail about how the winner of the pot is not the only one who contributed to the rake; I’ll save that one for another time. So you are paying $10 an hour to the rake and we will assume that you are winning 2 tippable pots an hour bringing you to a grand total of, drum roll please, $12 an hour or 1.5 big bets just to break even! To win 1 big bet an hour you actually need to be able to beat the game for 2.5 big bets an hour.

In the above example I didn’t include other expenses you will incur, such as gas, food, or tipping of the waitresses, the other figures were depressing enough. To take it a step further, in a $2/$4 game you must win 4 big bets an hour, $16 to show a profit of $4. If we were to cut the starting buy in of the players in half for the $2/$4 game there would be a grand total of -$85 up for grabs after 5 hours, a truly unbeatable game!

Of course people will re-buy and new players will come to the table but your ability will never be able to offset the rake and other expenses at a $2/$4 or even a $3/$6 table in the long run. The first limit you will see a long term winning player will be at our 2.5 big bets per hour table, $4/$8, but they will be few and far between. Players with enough skill to beat a game for 2.5 big bets per hour will take their skills and knowledge onto greener pastures and move to a higher limit game where they won’t have to battle so hard against the 11th person at the table; the rake.

let me know what you think

[Copernicus]

I'm not sure why you need all of the analysis of how much money is up for grabs at the table, and all of the adjustments. There is, presumably, an infinite supply of opponents and their money. I also dont think waitress tips, gas, and so on are relevant. You have those expenses in any other form of entertainment, or more to the point, you have them in getting to any job, but you dont subtract them when you say "I make $25 an hour as an apprentice butcher". You can also reduce the rake and eliminate the other expenses by playing online, which, for lower limits, is probably far more cost effective.

Note that the average pot after the rake at Stars is 6 big bets at every level of the limit games. Does that say the average hourly rate should be the same at all limits? Probably not. The rake is a larger percentage of the pot at the lower limits, so the fact that the average net pot is the same indicates that the lower the limit the higher the average gross pot before rake...ie the games are looser, no surprise.

Online a tight player is likely to be involved in 10-15 pots per hour, so a win rate of 1 big bet per hour is a net profit per hand played of "only" .07 to .1 big bets. What is the composition of that, lets call it .1 big bet?

Average pot won at showdown * showdown win percentage * % of hands played that are seen all the way to showdown

plus

Average pot won uncontested in each round * percentage of hands played that are taken to that round

minus

Average bet per hand taken to showdown * percentage of hands taken to but lost in showdown

minus

average bets made in hands folded prior to showdown (broken down by betting round folded) * percentage of hands played and taken to but folded at each level.

Make your assumptions for a low limit game and a high limit game and see how easy (hard) it is to make that .1 big bet per hand played.

It is an interesting exercise that I think demonstrates that it is indeed hard to earn at that rate at any level, and boastful claims of results far exceeding 1 big bet per hour are probably a lot of crap.

Improving on the above model would isolate various aspects of playing for analysis and, in combination with PokerTracker or other means of tracking the details of your game, could be very helpful in indentifying where in your game you can find the quickest improvement.

[Lunamondo]

I get my limit poker rake knowledge from the wilson's turbo software (turbo hold'em) by both simulation and playing; it then shows how much one wins and how much one pays rake. About the time pays one just ignores the rake and takes the time pay out of it manually.

I don't know how to get to know exactly, or even about, how much rake one pays at big bet poker.

[Terry]

You missed a couple points. I don’t see anything in there about the skill levels of the players at different stakes.

There is also the fact that when I first learned to play Hold ‘em I earned a few pennies less than 3 big bets per hour at $2/$4, including tips, over the course of about 1200 hours. I simply didn’t realize that I was ready to move up to $4/$8 and then quickly on to $10/$20.

A few years ago, when internet poker first came on the scene, skeptic that I am, I again played over 1000 hours of $2/$4 online just to convince myself that the games were beatable. I made a few cents over 2 big bets per hour.

I now play only online games up to $10/$20, but I assure you that a good deal of my profit comes from $2/$4 and $3/$6 games. Yes, it is possible to beat the rake at low limit. Many of us here do it (almost) every day.