Holy mother of god - rake SUCKS!!!

Printable View

12-20-2007, 10:43 PM
Robb

Holy mother of god - rake SUCKS!!!

I'd like to hear from folks at NL50, NL100 and NL200 what their effective rake is. Let's use regular BB/100, not ptBB/100. I will give more details below. For clarity, the formula is:

RakeRate = ( TotalRakePaid / TotalHandsPlayed ) * 100 / BigBlind

Jeez! I never realized how much you have to win at microstakes just to beat the rake. Since October, I've played 40k NL10 hands with a win rate of 10.8 BB/100, but I've paid an average of 11.9 BB/100 in rake. I know everyone's rake rate / 100 will differ based on the tightness or looseness of their style, site played, typical opponets' styles, etc. I have rakeback of 30%, so my effective rake rate is 8.3 BB/100. My calculation to help anyone who's confused went like this: 38,272 hands with $455.04 in rake at NL10, so...

Robb's RakeRate = ( $455.02 / 38272 ) * 100 / $0.10 = 11.8896

I thought I'd post this for the noobs as I never realized what WINNING at NL10 meant - it means you're freakin' killin' the game. Break even NL10 is an accomplishment w/o rakeback, and noobs who need 30k to 40k hands to start breaking even shouldn't be ashamed. But the upshot is, for noobs at least, GET RAKEBACK NOW, even if you have to switch sites, move money, drive to Canada to do your banking - LoL, just do what ya gotta.

Second thing, I started investigating where some "rake relief" will occur. Where I play (UB), they have what appears to be a fairly standard 5% of all pots with a $3 max. That means you would have to win a pot of MORE THAN $60 to get a "rake discount." We're playing NLH for standard 100 BB stacks, when we're lucky. So even NL25 with $50 all-in stackings don't qualify for a "rake discount." At NL50,we finally see a rake of only 3% on 100BB stack all-ins. So that's what I would like to see from the NL50's through NL200's - how does the rake's impact reduce as you move up? Does anyone at NL50 or NL100 earn more per hand than the casino rakes?

Finally, for anyone confused about ptBB vs. BB, PokerTracker is old enough that is was designed for limit poker where BB meant "Big Bet," the larger standard betting amount on the turn and river, typically 2xBigBlind. For NL10, where SmallBlind = $0.05 and BigBlind = $0.10, a win rate of 5 ptBB/100 would be $1 per 100 hands (5 * $0.20). It's equivalent win rate would be 10 BB/100 (10 * $0.10), if "BB" means "Big Blind," since No Limit has the same minimum bet for every round of betting. It has become ALMOST standard in this forum and others to read "BB/100" to mean "BigBlind/100" and to specify ptBB/100 when you mean it. But there is still confusion.

Sorry for the long post. Replies mucho appreciated.
12-21-2007, 12:21 AM
bigspenda73

rake at 6max at lower levels is typically one buyin/1000 hands.

Yea it sucks, so make sure at lower levels you are clearing bonuses and/or have rakeback...that will help alleviate a lot of your concern. I think I made $25/1000 hands with bonus/rb at $50nl.
12-21-2007, 12:30 AM
spoonitnow

At 100nl full ring over 125k-ish hands from within the past couple of months I averaged $0.0577 MGR/hand.
12-21-2007, 12:50 AM
Chopper

somebody correct me if i am wrong, but i felt that referring to winrates in NL was the exact opposite at FTR. i "assume" ptbb/100, unless otherwise specified.

therefore, i calculated my "rake" at about 5ish per 100. either way, beating the game at microstakes is pretty much crushing it.
12-21-2007, 02:03 AM
JeffreyGB

As a point of reference and comparison, at 2/4 + 3/6, I'm seeing around 1/3 BI per 1k hands (if my estimates are right).
12-21-2007, 02:36 AM
Jack Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robb

Holy mother of god - rake SUCKS!!!

this really made me LOL
12-21-2007, 09:35 AM
Pelion

yea this is why rakeback is so important
12-21-2007, 09:44 AM
Robb

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffreyGB

As a point of reference and comparison, at 2/4 + 3/6, I'm seeing around 1/3 BI per 1k hands (if my estimates are right).

So...the BEST CASE scenario is only having to generate 1/3 BI per 1k hands, with no real relief in sight before NL100. Wow.
12-21-2007, 10:56 AM
djzcko

$50NL, 6 max I pay 14bb/100 rake which include BBJ rake. Wihtout the BBJ rake, it would probably be closer to 10bb/100 or 1 buyin per 1000 hands. Even at $50nl, you don't exceed the rake limit often enough to reduce your overall rake...I'd say you have to hit $100nl before you see any reduction in rake vs winnings.
12-21-2007, 01:54 PM
Robb

Quote:

Originally Posted by djzcko

$50NL, 6 max I pay 14bb/100 rake which include BBJ rake. Wihtout the BBJ rake, it would probably be closer to 10bb/100 or 1 buyin per 1000 hands. Even at $50nl, you don't exceed the rake limit often enough to reduce your overall rake...I'd say you have to hit $100nl before you see any reduction in rake vs winnings.

Are the BBJ tables fishy enough to compensate for the HUGE rake you pay? Must be, I guess, if you're playing there. What's your win rate at a BBJ NL50 table?
12-21-2007, 01:56 PM
Miffed22001

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robb

Quote:

Originally Posted by djzcko

$50NL, 6 max I pay 14bb/100 rake which include BBJ rake. Wihtout the BBJ rake, it would probably be closer to 10bb/100 or 1 buyin per 1000 hands. Even at $50nl, you don't exceed the rake limit often enough to reduce your overall rake...I'd say you have to hit $100nl before you see any reduction in rake vs winnings.

Are the BBJ tables fishy enough to compensate for the HUGE rake you pay? Must be, I guess, if you're playing there. What's you win rate at a BBJ NL50 table?

often yes.
12-21-2007, 02:13 PM
Robb

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robb

Are the BBJ tables fishy enough to compensate for the HUGE rake you pay? Must be, I guess, if you're playing there. What's you win rate at a BBJ NL50 table?

often yes.

Sure the rake's okay...if you hit the jackpot - TWICE, like a lightning-strike, lottery-winning mofo :lol:
12-23-2007, 12:43 AM
spoonitnow

Just to give you an idea...

I played 37.53 hours this week of 100nl FR on PokerStars. I 14-table.

I paid $1728.19 in rake.

If I played the same amount for 52 weeks/year, I'd make PokerStars $89,865.88/year.
12-23-2007, 07:15 AM
Miffed22001

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just to give you an idea...

I played 37.53 hours this week of 100nl FR on PokerStars. I 14-table.

I paid $1728.19 in rake.

If I played the same amount for 52 weeks/year, I'd make PokerStars $89,865.88/year.

and you'd make how much ruinning 3bbs/100 ?
12-28-2007, 09:49 AM
ChrisBCritter

Something about the numbers here seems fishy to me...

How does poker Tracker calculate how much rake you've "Paid"? Since the rake is taken from the pot, and you didn't create the whole pot from your stack, I don't see that as having paid the entire rake for that hand.
For Instance, a fake hand history:

HU 10NL, 5% rake up to $3
Hero: $10 AhAs
Villian: $10 KhKs
All-in Preflop
Pot: $20
Hero wins $19, $1 in rake paid.

Does poker tracker say that Hero paid a Full $1 in rake here? Because I see that hero only paid $0.50...If so, how is my viewpoint wrong here? Am I thinking too deeply? Not deep enough? I haven't been playing a lot lately, but when I was playing more (back at party when americans were welcome) and I wasn't killing the game, I was still showing a good profit... It just seems that this post is over-dramatasizing the effect of rake on profit...
12-28-2007, 02:36 PM
spoonitnow

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBCritter

Something about the numbers here seems fishy to me...

How does poker Tracker calculate how much rake you've "Paid"? Since the rake is taken from the pot, and you didn't create the whole pot from your stack, I don't see that as having paid the entire rake for that hand.
For Instance, a fake hand history:

HU 10NL, 5% rake up to $3
Hero: $10 AhAs
Villian: $10 KhKs
All-in Preflop
Pot: $20
Hero wins $19, $1 in rake paid.

Does poker tracker say that Hero paid a Full $1 in rake here? Because I see that hero only paid $0.50...If so, how is my viewpoint wrong here? Am I thinking too deeply? Not deep enough? I haven't been playing a lot lately, but when I was playing more (back at party when americans were welcome) and I wasn't killing the game, I was still showing a good profit... It just seems that this post is over-dramatasizing the effect of rake on profit...

Go to game notes and check the MGR stat instead of looking at the rake paid thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just to give you an idea...

I played 37.53 hours this week of 100nl FR on PokerStars. I 14-table.

I paid $1728.19 in rake.

If I played the same amount for 52 weeks/year, I'd make PokerStars $89,865.88/year.

and you'd make how much ruinning 3bbs/100 ?

102456.9
12-28-2007, 03:12 PM
biondino

I have paid 4.8ptbb/100 in rake at 50nl/pl since september, and my winrate in that period is 1.27ptbb/100.
12-28-2007, 05:55 PM
Robb

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBCritter

Something about the numbers here seems fishy to me...

How does poker Tracker calculate how much rake you've "Paid"? Since the rake is taken from the pot, and you didn't create the whole pot from your stack, I don't see that as having paid the entire rake for that hand.
For Instance, a fake hand history:

HU 10NL, 5% rake up to $3
Hero: $10 AhAs
Villian: $10 KhKs
All-in Preflop
Pot: $20
Hero wins $19, $1 in rake paid.

Does poker tracker say that Hero paid a Full $1 in rake here? Because I see that hero only paid $0.50...If so, how is my viewpoint wrong here? Am I thinking too deeply? Not deep enough? I haven't been playing a lot lately, but when I was playing more (back at party when americans were welcome) and I wasn't killing the game, I was still showing a good profit... It just seems that this post is over-dramatasizing the effect of rake on profit...

Only the winner pays rake, regardless of opponents in the pot. Here's why. The losers weren't getting anything back out of the pot anyway. Suppose three villains plus hero go all in for $10 each, so $40 pot. Hero wins. The 5% rake is $2. Hero wins $38, or everything in the pot minus the $2 rake.

The losers in any given hand lose everything they bet, not just rake. It doesn't matter where the chips came from. Once they're in the pot, they have to be "won" by someone. And the rake happens AFTER all the chips are in and all betting is complete. The only player who "owns" those chips is the one who wins the pot. So he's paying the rake.

This has game theoretic implications (most of which I'm not good enough to implement :shock: ). You can avoid rake by playing fewer hands and winning a higher percentage of them, possibly increasing overall winrate, another reason "tight is right" at microstakes. You can also avoid rake by winning preflop, when no rake is taken from the hand ("no flop, no drop" is fairly typical at the sites I've played). So, the player who wins a high percentage of times they put $$ in and also wins a good bit preflop would pay a smaller rake % than looser "see a lot flops" types. At some point, you can play too tight, but this is a consideration for pros (of which I am most certainly not one!) as they analyze a game's blinds and ante structure.

Steve Bagder (google him for his online articles) makes this point about why California tables are so much wilder and looser than Vegas tables. Vegas uses a rake while California card rooms often have a "seat tax." If everyone pays the same amount to sit at the table per hour, then loose is better. But rake encourages a tighter style. Of course, I'm at the point where I'm just trying to win somehow, not really implementing one of several winning styles for given conditions.
01-03-2008, 12:35 AM
Lukie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just to give you an idea...

I played 37.53 hours this week of 100nl FR on PokerStars. I 14-table.

I paid $1728.19 in rake.

If I played the same amount for 52 weeks/year, I'd make PokerStars $89,865.88/year.

this is actually something that really jumped out at me-- playing 37+ hours in a week.

How do you do that? One of the things I'm trying to do in '08 is put in a LOT more hours. I usually 12 table 6max and I usually get bored and quit after about 2 hours or so. After about 4 hours I'm completely beat and have to quit. I'm not sure how I can maintain focus and play a ton of tables WELL without burning out, and without splitting my time into 2 sessions (i.e. morning sesh and night sesh). Just curious... those are like redargoe hours.
01-03-2008, 09:23 AM
ChrisBCritter

Robb,
Thanks for the thorough explanation. I understand how my viewpoint was wrong, thankyou. So to word my example differently, the hero actually won $20, and THEN paid $1 in rake. That makes all the difference! And also brings up another small question... Does PokerTracker say that Hero won $20 for that hand, or $19? That would make a HUGE difference for the implications of this thread topic! I imagine that this is a simple question, but I haven't used PokerTracker myself in a couple years (since Mr Frist had his way...)

Chris
01-03-2008, 09:27 AM
ChrisBCritter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just to give you an idea...

I played 37.53 hours this week of 100nl FR on PokerStars. I 14-table.

I paid $1728.19 in rake.

If I played the same amount for 52 weeks/year, I'd make PokerStars $89,865.88/year.

this is actually something that really jumped out at me-- playing 37+ hours in a week.

How do you do that? One of the things I'm trying to do in '08 is put in a LOT more hours. I usually 12 table 6max and I usually get bored and quit after about 2 hours or so. After about 4 hours I'm completely beat and have to quit. I'm not sure how I can maintain focus and play a ton of tables WELL without burning out, and without splitting my time into 2 sessions (i.e. morning sesh and night sesh). Just curious... those are like redargoe hours.

See his "Great Story" thread...
A long read to be sure, but he explains his playing stamina quite well here...
01-03-2008, 10:26 AM
spoonitnow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just to give you an idea...

I played 37.53 hours this week of 100nl FR on PokerStars. I 14-table.

I paid $1728.19 in rake.

If I played the same amount for 52 weeks/year, I'd make PokerStars $89,865.88/year.

this is actually something that really jumped out at me-- playing 37+ hours in a week.

How do you do that? One of the things I'm trying to do in '08 is put in a LOT more hours. I usually 12 table 6max and I usually get bored and quit after about 2 hours or so. After about 4 hours I'm completely beat and have to quit. I'm not sure how I can maintain focus and play a ton of tables WELL without burning out, and without splitting my time into 2 sessions (i.e. morning sesh and night sesh). Just curious... those are like redargoe hours.

Really it's just something to work at. Your game selection and lifestyle is likely a lot different than mine, but I just try to get in multiple sessions with an hour or so break in between.

Like dude said, I talk about it a little in my "Great Story" thread, the name of the thread I got from trainer jyms I think btw :P
01-03-2008, 10:27 AM
spoonitnow

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBCritter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just to give you an idea...

I played 37.53 hours this week of 100nl FR on PokerStars. I 14-table.

I paid $1728.19 in rake.

If I played the same amount for 52 weeks/year, I'd make PokerStars $89,865.88/year.

this is actually something that really jumped out at me-- playing 37+ hours in a week.

How do you do that? One of the things I'm trying to do in '08 is put in a LOT more hours. I usually 12 table 6max and I usually get bored and quit after about 2 hours or so. After about 4 hours I'm completely beat and have to quit. I'm not sure how I can maintain focus and play a ton of tables WELL without burning out, and without splitting my time into 2 sessions (i.e. morning sesh and night sesh). Just curious... those are like redargoe hours.

See his "Great Story" thread...
A long read to be sure, but he explains his playing stamina quite well here...

lol i just said that

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBCritter

Robb,
Thanks for the thorough explanation. I understand how my viewpoint was wrong, thankyou. So to word my example differently, the hero actually won $20, and THEN paid $1 in rake. That makes all the difference! And also brings up another small question... Does PokerTracker say that Hero won $20 for that hand, or $19? That would make a HUGE difference for the implications of this thread topic! I imagine that this is a simple question, but I haven't used PokerTracker myself in a couple years (since Mr Frist had his way...)

Chris

PT says you won $19. Go to the Game Notes tab, hit get all, then check the MGR column. That's how much was taken out of the pots you won.
01-03-2008, 04:25 PM
ChrisBCritter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

PT says you won $19. Go to the Game Notes tab, hit get all, then check the MGR column. That's how much was taken out of the pots you won.

Ok. Thats what I thought.

This thread started off with OP saying he had a win rate of 10.8BB/100 and a "Rake rate" of 11.9BB/100. Looking at that and the way OP described it, you would think that OP was a LOSING player! But since the measurements are SEPERATE, the 10.8BB/100 is pure profit, and the 11.9BB/100 would be EXTRA had Mr. Rake not existed... I.E. OP's "Actual" win rate was about 22.7BB/100! but lost half of that to rake.

Finally this thread is making sense to me! Now go ahead someone and muddy the waters for me again by showing me that my math/logic is wrong here!
01-03-2008, 05:09 PM
Robb

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBCritter

Robb,
Thanks for the thorough explanation. I understand how my viewpoint was wrong, thankyou. So to word my example differently, the hero actually won $20, and THEN paid $1 in rake. That makes all the difference! And also brings up another small question... Does PokerTracker say that Hero won $20 for that hand, or $19? That would make a HUGE difference for the implications of this thread topic! I imagine that this is a simple question, but I haven't used PokerTracker myself in a couple years (since Mr Frist had his way...)

Chris

No way - you weren't wrong. I've been thinking about it a lot. The poker sites seem to compute rake for rakeback purposes the way you were thinking - a percentage of the total bets you made, including blinds. I'm not certain of the formula, but I've asked for clarification from my site about it.

However, from the winning player's point of view, the rake is a "winnings tax." The problem with this, like with most taxes, is that you get double and triple taxed. You win a buyin (and pay rake), but then you reinvest that BI in other hands, some of which you lose. Therefore, you have to "win" each dollar in you account more than once, and you therefore get it raked more than once.

Finally, the "rake" column in the "general info" tab of PT seems to calculate rake like the sites do which makes sense - a lot of us estimate our rakeback bonuses based on it, so it helps there to be consistent. I still am checking Spoon's suggestion that the MGR column is the better estimate of rake paid. I'm checking through some HH's to see precisely how it's calculated. If he's right, the "rake" column in the general info tab seriously underestimates rake paid (by 15-20%).

Edit: I played 14 hands at a limit for which I had no hands in the database, effectively creating a 14 hand database I could filter down to so I could carefully check these calculations. The "rake" number (gen. info tab) is exactly what I think it should be - the total rake paid from all hands hero won. The MGR number (games tab) is the calculation the way the poker sites (I think) figure it, as a weighted contribution of rake based on total number in the pot, regardless of who won. I personally think the "rake" number is the correct one to use, even if your poker sites pays out rakeback based on MGR.

And I paid $0.45 in rake to find this out :P
06-10-2008, 11:30 PM
TheScientist23

I know I'm kinda bumping this thread, but I have a question.

I guess I already know the answer, but I thought I would try anyway. I created a FTP account a LONG time ago. I'm talking a year or two before I actually played for real money and was serious about it. FTP has a strict policy about 1 account, per person, per lifetime. Is there ANY way in hell I can get RB for my FTP account? I am so used to the software there and have notes and stats in PT on so many players that it would be a waste to just start over at another site (which might be impossible for me since my credit card doesn't work anywhere other than FTP due to banking restrictions or some shit like that). I emailed one RB company about it and they said I couldn't because my account already had a promo code used for another thing (not RB) but I am almost positive I didn't use anything other than the initial deposit promo the first time.
06-10-2008, 11:49 PM
Robb

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScientist23

FTP has a strict policy about 1 account, per person, per lifetime. Is there ANY way in hell I can get RB for my FTP account?

Yes, as long as you've never had another rakeback account affiliated with your FT userID, you can. I don't know if it's appropriate for me to pimp for a rakeback site on FTR. But if you pm me, I'll give you my rakeback provider.

But it's not hard to google rakeback and find a site that will work with you. I did.
06-11-2008, 12:03 AM
Fnord

For Live poker in California $1 comes out of the SB, another $3 in rake drops if we see a flop, another $1 for the BBJP if there is a flop (house keeps 10% of that), if you play at the Commerce there is another $1 if a river is delt and finally I usually tip a dealer a buck.

..Hence moving up was really important.
06-11-2008, 12:09 AM
TheScientist23

That's the thing though, I already tried one rakeback provider and they said I couldn't because my account already had an "affiliate." I'll pm ya though.
06-11-2008, 12:14 AM
euphoricism

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robb

Quote:

Originally Posted by djzcko

$50NL, 6 max I pay 14bb/100 rake which include BBJ rake. Wihtout the BBJ rake, it would probably be closer to 10bb/100 or 1 buyin per 1000 hands. Even at $50nl, you don't exceed the rake limit often enough to reduce your overall rake...I'd say you have to hit $100nl before you see any reduction in rake vs winnings.

Are the BBJ tables fishy enough to compensate for the HUGE rake you pay? Must be, I guess, if you're playing there. What's you win rate at a BBJ NL50 table?

often yes.

i lol'd