Windsor Casino - 10% rake, 5$ max, at what limit is this even beatable

[DCWGaming]

When I visited Windsor half a year ago, me and a friend just screwed around and played 3/6 and 100NL. I lost 125$ canadian or something minor, and fairly recently I started to realize...I dont think their rake structure is even beatable.

I'm not too great with coming up with the equation to figure out the BB/100 that the rake takes away from you, but it seems like this would be enough to cripple everyone at the table.

At what limit would the game become beatable? I'm assuming 10/20...which is the highest limit they offered.

[Nick-Zack]

My favorite rake structure is the $100 buy in NL game at Greektown. They take $6 per dealer or 12% of the entire tables buyin every hour. Every 8 1/3 hours the casino gets all the money on the table if no one rebuys, leaves or tips.

[BoogerFace]

10% $4 max is beatable at just about any fixed limit, 2/4 and up provided the games are loose enough (4+ players to a flop). I doubt I'd miss an extra dollar per pot.

Sure that rake is steep but usually the poor quality of play makes up for it.

I know this probably sounds dumb, but I'm asking anyway.

If you're winning, how is the rake called unbeatable? I know the pot size determines what % your winnings are reduced by, but I don't understand how you've not "beaten" the rake.

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


ty

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
I know this probably sounds dumb, but I'm asking anyway.

If you're winning, how is the rake called unbeatable? I know the pot size determines what % your winnings are reduced by, but I don't understand how you've not "beaten" the rake.

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


ty

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll use completely made-up, meaningless numbers just to keep it simple and to make the point.

The way you win money playing poker is to win more pots than you lose and/or win more in the winning pots than you lose in the losing pots. Let's say there's no rake and that for every $100 you lose in your losing pots, you bring in $110 in your winning pots. This makes you a winning player - $10 for every however many hands this was. Now, let's say you have to pay 10% of each of your winning pots to the rake - that's $11 out of your $110. Now, all of a sudden, you're still losing $100 on all your losing hands, but you're only winning $110-$11=$99 on your winning hands - the rake has made you a losing player!

OK, after reading your reply I went off in a corner (with a cookie to munch on) and did the math. Rake'll getcha in 3/6 limit or less. Not what I play so I hadn't considered it.

If any of my scenarios are correct, once the pots start averaging >60 or so, you've cleared the 10% hurdle. (4 rake + 1 BBJ + 1 toke)

TY very much



[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, after reading your reply I went off in a corner (with a cookie to munch on) and did the math. Rake'll getcha in 3/6 limit or less. Not what I play so I hadn't considered it.

If any of my scenarios are correct, once the pots start averaging >60 or so, you've cleared the 10% hurdle. (4 rake + 1 BBJ + 1 toke)

TY very much



[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're not somehow considering the pots you're losing compared to the pots you're winning, then you're not going at this correctly. More importantly, it makes a difference if you won your $110 in one big pot or in 3 or 4 smaller pots. I think what you just figured out is that once the pots hit $60, then any more money that goes into the pot is "rake free".

[ QUOTE ]
If you're not somehow considering the pots you're losing compared to the pots you're winning, then you're not going at this correctly. More importantly, it makes a difference if you won your $110 in one big pot or in 3 or 4 smaller pots. I think what you just figured out is that once the pots hit $60, then any more money that goes into the pot is "rake free".


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, after another trip (+ cookie #2) and a lot of thinking about a “typical” session…

No, I wasn’t taking into consideration the number of smaller pots.

Yes, I was only considering the frequency of $80+ pots.

Yes, I’ve got to pay a damned sight more attention when I play next week.

TY very much. One of the better insights I’ve gotten here.

[TripleH68]

I have consistent winnings at 3/6 in Detroit with $5 max rake plus $1 jackpot drop plus tips - but it is very difficult to overcome. The gamboolers and donkeys are absolutely necessary. If you look around the table and there are 50% pretty solid players then you are in trouble.

[lefty rosen]

You need to have extremely bad players playing to win long term. If the table is relatively rocky it's rake losing city. Similar to Party at the .5/1 and 1/2 levels....... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]