Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Internet Gambling > Internet Gambling

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-01-2005, 08:07 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Paradox of rake?

Greetings,

Recently I have been considering the differences in rake offered at various online poker sites.

Some rakes seem reasonable (e.g. Pokerstars, Paradise) whereas other sites have just downright cruel rakes (e.g. Pokerroom, Pacific). It has been said that the skilled knowledgeable players will flock to a site where the rake is lower (and hence more money is left to be won). The more "fishy" players tend to either be oblivious to the negative impact of rake or they are compulsive types who don't care anyway.

Regardless of whether or not this sentiment is true, I often wonder what impact the rake has on the profitability of a game.

Is it true that higher rakes make games much harder to beat? I would be inclined to think that generally speaking, it's obvious higher rakes are bad for poker because they are like a tax. It's like tightening up a slot machine or putting another green zero on a roulette wheel.

But consider this other possibility, that the rake can make many games MORE profitable. This seems counterintuitive but consider highly-raked games getting bad players stuck faster. This could result in the fishy player trying to win his money back faster; hence the fish plays more hands and gives more action.

Even good players could end up playing worse by being more prone to tilt when they see their highly-raked wins not adequately compensating for their losses.

This is just an idea I have been throwing around and I'm wondering if it holds true in the 'real world' online context.

My first guess would be that higher rakes are extremely disastrous on sites that generally have sound players and less damaging on sites like Pacific (where the high rake could induce the fish to play even fishier).

I'm certainly not confident of this notion, which I was decided to post this.

Any ideas?

JeffreyREBT (Wherein I don't promise to make you rich without trying, or even trying very hard; I do promise to say things that will make you FEEL rich).
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-01-2005, 08:40 PM
threeonefour threeonefour is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 82
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

that like saying you can increase tax revenue by cutting taxes
silly republican...


seriously though, i have played in almost a dozen live pokerrooms and i have played poker online at 15 sites 1000 hands or more. i am almost 100% sure the increased rake ISN'T compensated for by a better 'shark to fish' ratio.


honestly, a lot of losing players are aware of rake. a lot of winning players care a whole lot more about playing bad players than paying more in rake. also there are many factors other than rake to consider online (bonus, software, support, cashout times, interface isssues) and all those factors play a fairly big role in where the average player ends up playing, shark or not.


as a result there is a lot of noise that drowns out the 'high rake= massive fish' signal.


people talk about how absolute or gamesgrid were full of rocks and how pacific was full of fish. i honestly did not see a significant change in my winrate between the three sites (pre bonus and such...). weak tight players make mistakes just like loose passive players, they are just different mistakes. and there were tags at pacific and loose passives at gamesgrid and absolute too.

EDIT: anecdotal evidence: the average 2+2er is very aware of rake. the average 2+2er is FAAAR from being a shark. personally i hate the whole fish/shark paradigm dichotomy thing... but just to stay consistent with your terminology i would say at least a third(probably more) of 2+2ers are fish. furthermore, i would guess that at most 10-15% are 'sharks'
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-02-2005, 03:31 AM
AlexHoops AlexHoops is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

Off topic and I apologize... In LHE what must your winrate be at a certain level to be considered a shark at that level?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-02-2005, 06:57 AM
illunious illunious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 247
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

I doubt higher rake puts more people on tilt.

People normally tilt when they lose some pots, and who cares how much a pot you lost is raked?

Some people probably pay more attention than me, but during the actual game, I honestly don't notice any difference between winning a $68 pot on one site and a $69 pot on another site.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:00 AM
illunious illunious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 247
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

[ QUOTE ]
Off topic and I apologize... In LHE what must your winrate be at a certain level to be considered a shark at that level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the stakes. For limit, anything from maybe 8 BB/100 for nano limits through a fraction of a BB at very high stakes. Only after tens of thousands of hands of course.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-2005, 03:56 PM
AlexHoops AlexHoops is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

What about 2.5bb/100 at 3/6 full ring? I can see how somebody could easily get up to 3.5, but much higher I doubt it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-02-2005, 04:02 PM
DuggleBogey DuggleBogey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

Fish don't favor a site BECAUSE the rake is high. The theory is that sharks will avoid a site because the rake is high, but that doesn't work either because sharks play for the fish, not dependant on the rake.

The overall conclusion is that rake has NO effect on the shark to fish ratio of a site.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:04 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

Add some more "noise" to this idea: the rake is significantly reduced during a reload/bonus. Then the rake doesn't matter as much. A shark can then "test the waters" to see if the site is potentially profitable, otherwise he can finish the bonus and leave to only come back during another reload.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-02-2005, 07:21 PM
Sixth_Rule Sixth_Rule is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 71
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

[ QUOTE ]
that like saying you can increase tax revenue by cutting taxes
silly republican

[/ QUOTE ]

or make more profits by lowering the price of your merchendise
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-03-2005, 11:16 AM
Rudbaeck Rudbaeck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 555
Default Re: Paradox of rake?

[ QUOTE ]
What about 2.5bb/100 at 3/6 full ring? I can see how somebody could easily get up to 3.5, but much higher I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

2.5 is good, 3.5 is probably only possible if you single table.

No one in his right mind reaches 3.5BB/100 at 3/6 over enough hands to demonstrate that he actually did so. His roll will be big enough to move up long, long before that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.