|
|
#31
09-16-2005, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\" deal
[ QUOTE ]
The fish don't pay all of the 5% rake, this being the problem with your analogy. [/ QUOTE ] So if I win a $100 pot and $5 is raked leaving me $95, what % of the rake did I just pay? 
|
|
#32
09-16-2005, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\" deal
how much did you contribute to the pot? do a prorata for each street. divide by the number of players, again prorata for each street. divide by 100 to get a percent.
|
|
#33
09-16-2005, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\" deal
[ QUOTE ]
how much did you contribute to the pot? do a prorata for each street. divide by the number of players, again prorata for each street. divide by 100 to get a percent. [/ QUOTE ] This is not rakeback. I won $100. $5 was taken by the site leaving me $95. Anyone else who contributed to the pot did not pay any rake. The rake came exclusively from MY $100 pot. If there were no rake, I would have received the full $100 and paid 0% in rake. As is, I received only $95, paying the full 5% in rake. Am I missing something here (quite possible) or are you.
|
|
#34
09-16-2005, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\" deal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] how much did you contribute to the pot? do a prorata for each street. divide by the number of players, again prorata for each street. divide by 100 to get a percent. [/ QUOTE ] . This is not rakeback. I won $100. $5 was taken by the site leaving me $95. Anyone else who contributed to the pot did not pay any rake. The rake came exclusively from MY $100 pot. If there were no rake, I would have received the full $100 and paid 0% in rake. As is, I received only $95, paying the full 5% in rake. Am I missing something here (quite possible) or are you. [/ QUOTE ] How much of the rake did the people who lost their portion of the $100 pay in rake? You can't have it both ways by saying you won the pot so you paid all of the rake and still believe that the fish (who will presumably win less and smaller pots than you) pay a 5% rake which was your original supposition when you compared poker rake to the house advantage in different casino games.
|
|
#35
09-16-2005, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\"
Has anyone actually bothered to figure out the "house edge" (even though that's not actually what it is) is for a player losing xBB/100? You'd have to take all their hands, figure out how much money they wagered in total, and then divide by how much money they lost. I am pretty sure it's generally very low compared to most games, for all but the biggest losers.
Also, I bring this up a lot in these threads, but it bears repeating - poker is not a fad. It was played weekly by tens of millions of people before anyone had seen a holecam. It might (probably will) receed from the current level at some point, but it's never going to fade into obscurity like some of the doom and gloomers seem to think...and the games will be fairly easy if you're a good player for a long, long time.
|
|
#36
09-16-2005, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] how much did you contribute to the pot? do a prorata for each street. divide by the number of players, again prorata for each street. divide by 100 to get a percent. [/ QUOTE ] This is not rakeback. I won $100. $5 was taken by the site leaving me $95. Anyone else who contributed to the pot did not pay any rake. The rake came exclusively from MY $100 pot. If there were no rake, I would have received the full $100 and paid 0% in rake. As is, I received only $95, paying the full 5% in rake. Am I missing something here (quite possible) or are you. [/ QUOTE ] When you say I paid 5% in rake, you actually paid much more. You have to deduct what you put in the pot and then do your rake %. Say if you won a 100 pot and was pushed 95, but you contributed 35 of your own money to the pot. So you netted 60 in profit while paying $5 in rake. The rake percentage then is over 8% of your net winnings. But who charges $5 in rake for any pot?
|
|
#37
09-16-2005, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\" deal
[ QUOTE ]
How much of the rake did the people who lost their portion of the $100 pay in rake? You can't have it both ways by saying you won the pot so you paid all of the rake and still believe that the fish (who will presumably win less and smaller pots than you) pay a 5% rake which was your original supposition when you compared poker rake to the house advantage in different casino games. [/ QUOTE ] For the sake of argument, let's assume that the rake is 5%, even though this is a standard B&M figure that is closer to 3% online when the pot is large enough. I just won a $100 pot. I only get $95 of it. 5% of the $100 pot I just won was taken from me. How much, in that particular pot, did anyone else pay in rake? Absolutely nothing. If there were no rake - I would receive $100 - anyone else who contributed to the pot would receive $0 5% rake - I receive $95 instead of $100 - anyone lese who contributed to the pot still receives $0
|
|
#38
09-16-2005, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\" deal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] How much of the rake did the people who lost their portion of the $100 pay in rake? You can't have it both ways by saying you won the pot so you paid all of the rake and still believe that the fish (who will presumably win less and smaller pots than you) pay a 5% rake which was your original supposition when you compared poker rake to the house advantage in different casino games. [/ QUOTE ] For the sake of argument, let's assume that the rake is 5%, even though this is a standard B&M figure that is closer to 3% online when the pot is large enough. I just won a $100 pot. I only get $95 of it. 5% of the $100 pot I just won was taken from me. How much, in that particular pot, did anyone else pay in rake? Absolutely nothing. If there were no rake - I would receive $100 - anyone else who contributed to the pot would receive $0 5% rake - I receive $95 instead of $100 - anyone lese who contributed to the pot still receives $0 [/ QUOTE ] Using your logic then the fish pay zero rake, much better than any of the casino games. Do you see the problem with your earlier analogy now?
|
|
#39
09-16-2005, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One thing I just don\'t get about the \"fish will lose their money\" deal
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How much of the rake did the people who lost their portion of the $100 pay in rake? You can't have it both ways by saying you won the pot so you paid all of the rake and still believe that the fish (who will presumably win less and smaller pots than you) pay a 5% rake which was your original supposition when you compared poker rake to the house advantage in different casino games. [/ QUOTE ] For the sake of argument, let's assume that the rake is 5%, even though this is a standard B&M figure that is closer to 3% online when the pot is large enough. I just won a $100 pot. I only get $95 of it. 5% of the $100 pot I just won was taken from me. How much, in that particular pot, did anyone else pay in rake? Absolutely nothing. If there were no rake - I would receive $100 - anyone else who contributed to the pot would receive $0 5% rake - I receive $95 instead of $100 - anyone lese who contributed to the pot still receives $0 [/ QUOTE ] Using your logic then the fish pay zero rake, much better than any of the casino games. Do you see the problem with your earlier analogy now? [/ QUOTE ] They paid 0% rake on that particular pot because they lost the hand. They are paying the rake later on pots they win
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
