Fighting the Rake in 2-4 and 3-6 Stud-8

[ctj]

1. It seems to me that the rake makes these games difficult to beat. At Pokerstars, where the games move elatively quickly, for example, upwards of 70 hands/hr are dealt. I would (conservatively) estimate that the average rake per pot is $1 (esp. at 3-6). Thus, you can think of the rake as another opponent who remorselessly grinds out a win of 12-18 big bets per hour. I don't know what the total loss rate of the losing players is, but take your best guess, then subtract the Rake's win (18 BB/hr at 2-4, 12 at 3-6) -- that is what is left over for the winning players.

2. The stepwise nature of the rake (1$ at 20-40-60) distorts the game in some situations. If you are freerolling with a made low versus an obvious high hand, and your next bet (and opp's call) would push the pot over $40 or $60, you must weigh the probablity that you will win high versus the loss of $0.50 to the rake. Thus, with a gutshot straight draw on 6th you should probably check at 2-4 (win 4$ 1 out of 12 -- lose 50c every time), but bet at 3-6. Similar considerations apply on the river - you must weigh the certainty of loss (to the rake) vs the probability of gain.

3. In one-way games, the rake is essentially a tax on winnings (bets that aren't called are not raked), but in split pot games, when the action is 2-handed, and the pot is split, your bets are raked even though there was no profit for you. For example, in 3-6, consider a hand with 6 players to start (antes + bring-in = $2.50). If only 2 players participate in the pot (not that unusual), and the final pot is over $60 (not that difficult - just needs 1 raise on the $6 streets), then the rake will be $3. If the pot is split, then the players were really fighting over the $2.50 in antes/bring-in, so they each lost money. In other words, this wasn't really a $62.50 pot (once there wasn't a scoop), it was a $2.50 pot.

4. A Modest (and probably futile) Proposal:

The basic problem, as seen from the examples above, is that it is unfair and distorting to rake 2-way split money. The solution would be to only rake 3-way (or multi-way) money when the pot is split. If one player wins the entire pot, it would all be subject to rake. Visually, this could be shown as follow: multi-way money in the pot goes to the center (as now) and is subject to rake. Once the pot is 2-handed, the 2-way money stays in front of the player (but closer to the pot than uncalled bets). If the pot is split, this money is simply returned to the player, unraked. If the pot is not split, the 2-way money goes to the center and is raked with the multi-way money.

Since this rake regime would cost the house a lot of money compared to the current system, I don't think there's much hope of it ever happening, but any site that did this would certainly get all of my stud-8 action. Perhaps if some of the more respected and well-known stud-8 players (Andy-B? Ray Zee?) were to push this - maybe to Pokerstars, which seems more able than most sites to see things from the player's point of view.

[hurlyburly]

I know I save a couple bucks/session just by watching the pot and checking down when we're obviously opposites. Smarter villains will do this with you, since we're all waiting to win the big multi-way pots at these limits.

People that don't make rake considerations in heads-up pots have my love tho, and it's worth more than the .25 lost to learn.

[TheNoodleMan]

there is a catch 22 in rake reduction. The fact is, the fish don't care about rake. The winners care about rake, but they also want to play against the weaker opposition.
When faced with the choice of paying slightly less rake or playing much worse players, most woill choose the latter.

[Andy B]

1. The rake is going to be a factor in any game. It is magnified in a split pot game, but split pot games are usually where players play the worst. I have found, however, that many stud/8 players on Stars play half-decently. This doesn't always make for great games.

2. This is something I've been interested in analyzing for a while, but haven't gotten around to. If you have a lock for low and some shot at the high, you should be very sure that you're drawing dead or nearly so in order not to bet in these kinds of situations. You're risking $.50 or whatever for a shot at an extra $6 or $12.

3. One reason I quit playing stud/8 five years ago was because my local $4/8 game was starting to tighten up, and I didn't like losing money on quads.

4. Well, it's tough that you sometimes lose money in heads-up pots, but I don't think that Stars or anyone else is terribly interested in doing anything about it. They'd rather spread hold'em anyway. If you were a poker site, would you rather have 100% of the stud/8 action, or 5% of the NLHE action?

[bholdr]

On the surface, it looks like the rake is terribly hard to beat, but it's not really that bad, especially online. One thing that doesn't really get mentioned is that the tighter players end up paying less in rake than the looser players. A player from this forum, that is (hopefully) playing about 20% of his hands, only pays half as much in rake as a loose player that plays 40% of his hands. So, while the rake might be taking, say 16 BB/h off the table (a high estimate), that doesn't mean that it's taking a full 2BB/hr (16BB/8 players) from the good players- it's probably more like 1- which should still be beatable, and by a lot in loose low limit games.

now live 2/4 and 3/6 holdem is a totally different story- you lose $3 in rake, $1 for the jackpot, and a $1 toke if you win (and you're not a cheap bastard). that's a BB every hand, basicly unbeatable. even 4/8 is only beatable against terrible opposition, get a few rocks in a game and it's just a rake-fest. ugh.

[bigredlemon]

[ QUOTE ]
4. Well, it's tough that you sometimes lose money in heads-up pots, but I don't think that Stars or anyone else is terribly interested in doing anything about it. They'd rather spread hold'em anyway. If you were a poker site, would you rather have 100% of the stud/8 action, or 5% of the NLHE action?

[/ QUOTE ]You could always go for both. I don't see any site ever promoting stud on TV or the internet. The fact that it's listed on the web page and software seems to be all the advertising we get. Sometimes it makes me wonder if sites purposely try to supress the stud action. UB's awful low limit structure comes to mind, where at the .25/.50 table, ante is .10, bring in is .15, and completion is .25. I think you'd have to limp in with anything, and call completion with anything.

[Andy B]

I firmly believe that live $2/4 and $3/6 HE are beatable. I know first hand that live stud games at that level are beatable.

[bigredlemon]

I kind of like the structure of 2/4. Or at least would like it more if the bring in were .75 instead of $1 so a completion actually has some use.

[Maulik]

So far, first hand and my own mistakes have shown people are calling to see a street to give their hand some sort of draw, whether its a flush or a straight etc. This play is terrible, you won't mind juicing pots when these mistakes are made and give a % of that juice to rake.

The only problem with juicing these pots is often times the rake will approach $20 and you've got a $21 pot, the 7th street bet cost you a little in rake, but this is okay.

As far as I can tell with the extra streets there are many additional mistakes making this rake structure easily beatable.

[ctj]

Thanks for all of your comments. To address some of the issues raised:

I agree that 2-4 and 3-6 are beatable - i just said it was difficult to beat the rake. Remember, that guy in seat 9 is beating the game for $70/hr - the fish could stay around longer if he were taking less.

It costs an online site nothing to spread a table, so attacting more Stud-8 players wouldn't affect their hold-em action.

I don't agree that bad or average players completely ignore the cost of the rake. I also contend that the rake in split-pot games (at these stakes) costs you on average 3 times as much, == as a percent of your win in a pot ==, as it does in one-way games.

I also don't agree that good players pay substantially less rake (in stud-8) than bad players. While you play and win fewer pots, you will end up in a lot hands where you are freerolling with a made low vs a high hand. In these pots, you tend to be taxed almost 100% of your meager profit, depending on how much dead money was in the pot before it became 2-way.

Regarding betting when you are freerolling:
Say you have (45)738J
against (??)KQQ6
If the pot is just below the next rake step, then betting is wrong (-EV) here (you can always bet 7th if you catch a 6). This distorts the game by forcing the player who is freerolling to check.

While I feel that my scheme for raking hi-low games would be make the rake, as a percent of a player's profit in the pot, more comparable to one-way games, I agree that there is no particular incentive for the house to implement it.

The ultimate solution for the player is to move to higher limits, where the rake cap makes the rake merely a minor annoyance, compared to the size of the pots. Alternatively, I suppose, one could switch to 7-stud hi only.

Regards,

C.T. Jackson