Cost of Playing Poker

[Sparks]

If it's correct that winning players win more hands per hour, on average, than losing players, is it also correct that in raked games (or dropped games) that the casino or online site "charges" winning players more to play?

Thanks.

Sparks

[JoshuaD]

The Casino's charge the players who the win the most pots the most. Winning players don't generally drag that many more pots than losing players, so everyone's charged about the same.

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's correct that winning players win more hands per hour, on average, than losing players...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, I think your premise is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
is it also correct that in raked games (or dropped games) that the casino or online site "charges" winning players more to play?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think over time everyone is charged about the same.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's correct that winning players win more hands per hour, on average, than losing players, is it also correct that in raked games (or dropped games) that the casino or online site "charges" winning players more to play?

Thanks.

Sparks

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning players normally win fewer pots than their opponents. The pots are just usually bigger because they bet/raise when they have the best of it, and fold in smaller pots when the pot odds aren't correct to continue.

[Wally Weeks]

[ QUOTE ]
Winning players normally win fewer pots than their opponents. The pots are just usually bigger because they bet/raise when they have the best of it, and fold in smaller pots when the pot odds aren't correct to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also known as tight-aggressive play. According to Malmuth in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, winning gamblers employ a non-self weighting strategy. This means that good players tend to push more money in the pot when they have the best of it and save bets when the pot odds, etc., don't justify it. This also implies bankroll swings caused by the luck factor in poker.

Regards,
Wally

[cardcounter0]

I also think winning players win a smaller number of pots.

It seems to me I see losing players play more hands, and trade pots back and forth amongst each other (paying rake with each exchange).

Then the winning player enters the rare pot, wins it, and retains it.

[CanKid]

I pay time fee.

[memphis57]

I don't think that analytically it's correct to say that only winners pay the rake. The rake cost should be equally shared among all players in proportion to your contributions to the pot - if the rake averages 5%, you must pay the house 5c to put 95c in the pot. This is consistent with the idea that in post mortem evaluations of your play, you should not simply tally wins and losses, but take a share of each pot where you had a definitive drawing chance to win (e.g., if you win a $25 pot but hitting runner-runner quads, the true post mortem value of that hand is less than if you lost a $15 pot by missing consecutive flush draws). This, in turn, is consistent with the idea that all you can control is your play and your reads - you cannot control the luck of the draw, and thus should seek to eliminate it in evalutating play.

[Cerril]

I suppose if you arbitrarily say that the rake is taken out of the pot when it's won, then a winning player pays a larger percentage to the casino than a losing player, however a losing player makes up for that and more by paying a whole lot more to the rest of the table (or at least to the winning player).

However, even that distinction is somewhat flawed. The maniac who does nothing but raise has the pro beat in every respect. His pots are generally larger, and he wins more pots, so he pays a lot more rake. Of course he also bleeds his money away faster by far because he's involved in a whole lot more pots where he isn't the winner.

[MyMindIsGoing]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's correct that winning players win more hands per hour

[/ QUOTE ]

Most winning players win fewer pots per hour but they win more money per hour. The game is not about winning pots, its about winning money.