Who pays the rake?

[EjnarPik]

When I started out playing poker, this was sometimes discussed. The winners claimed they paid, as the money was taken out of the pots they won. The losers claimed they paid, as there would have been no money for the rake, if they had not lost. Somebody claimed that all paid the rake, as it was taken from everybody.

What is your opinion?

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[playerfl]

over time it is collected from everybody evenly if they all play the same number of hands.

who pays the rake in any particular hand is a purely philosophical discussion.

[Luv2DriveTT]

The winner pays the rake. It is taken from his or her winnings. The loosers do not pay an additional fee when they loose, therefore the loosers do not pay.

In da club [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[Louie Landale]

The loser of the hand does not pay the rake. If you call all the way you'll lose 3BB on the hand and it doesn't matter how much the rake is: you lose 3BB.

The winner of the pot pays the rake. If you call all the way heads-up you'll win 3BB from the opponent MINUS the rake. This means you need to dowgrade the actual pot size, early in the hand, when determining to play. If there is likely a $3 rake then your first decision should presume the pot is about $3 less than it actually is.

Over-all the folks that win the most hands pay most of the rake.

- Louie

[playerfl]

addendum: if one person wins a lot more hands than anyone else then they would pay more rake. If everyone wins the same percentage of hands then the rake is evenly distributed.

[ZeeJustin]

When you propose 2 scenarios, one has no "ifs" and the other does, go with the one without the ifs.

[ACW]

At PL high-low split games it's often both of you!

It's not uncommon to split the pot and get back less than you put in. It can even happen at high only games. One of my best moments playing poker was when I correctly folded with the nuts to an all-in bet with one caller already there. All three of us had the same hand and I'd have lost money by calling!

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
When I started out playing poker, this was sometimes discussed. The winners claimed they paid, as the money was taken out of the pots they won. The losers claimed they paid, as there would have been no money for the rake, if they had not lost. Somebody claimed that all paid the rake, as it was taken from everybody.

What is your opinion?

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at it this way:

10 guys sits down with $1000 ($10000 total) and plays poker for 5 hrs in somebodys home. When they leave they still leave with $10000 total just distributed differently.

The day after the same guys brings $1000 each to the casino and play for 5 hrs and magically they get the exact same hands and play them the exact same way. Now they leave with only $9000. Only people who never won a pot leaves with the same amount as the night before, so chances are that everybody leaves with less.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
When I started out playing poker, this was sometimes discussed. The winners claimed they paid, as the money was taken out of the pots they won. The losers claimed they paid, as there would have been no money for the rake, if they had not lost. Somebody claimed that all paid the rake, as it was taken from everybody.

What is your opinion?


[/ QUOTE ]

The winner pays the rake. But, more importantly, the looser player pays a larger percentage of the rake. A loose player is likely to be in more hands and win more pots. He will pay the rake out of each pot he wins. A tighter player is in less hands and wins fewer pots -- although hopefully a higher percentage of the pots he is in.

Another reason to play tight when the rake is significant.

[SeppDeitrich]

so what you're saying is the pot's winner pays the rake, if that's what you're saying you'd be right. Over the long run tight players will pay less rake.