Let's talk about rake, late 2025 edition.
I just count the chips missing from pots I win due to all sources, and add back promos and rakeback.
Don't forget that when you stack someone their stack has often been obliterated by rake/drops/tips, so you're probably paying even more than you computed.
G****rakeG
Wasn't too hard to do, actually. I just waited for a quiet period where my conversations with neighbours had died down and then quietly chilled while recording rakes for an hour. With 38% of pots reaching maximum rake, this was often done by the flop (ex. raised to $15, 3 calls, a cbet of $30 and a call, bam, done) and the rest of the hand didn't have to be paid attention to.
Personally, I’ve found it unproductive to focus on rake. It’s obvious that playing higher reduces the rake, but if all you have is 1/3 it’s not an option.
Yeah, I certainly don't focus on rake when I'm playing, and since I pretty much only have 1/3 NL as an option (and I'm fine with that for my recreational purposes) it simply is what it is.
But I think there are two things regarding my Super Nit strategy that are, in part, based on the effect of a large rake at LLSNL.
One, as you sorta mentioned yourself, tight is right and tighter is righter. You simply can't afford to be splashing around from every position in lottsa rake ravaged pots.
Two, our room doesn't take any money from the pot if we don't see a flop (which I'm guessing is the norm in most rooms). So taking down huge dead money preflop and unraked is a huge coup in the battle against rake. My much despised LRR strategy helps accomplishes this.
GG’s post is shocking as I never realized that the house was taking 1,000+ every 4/5 hours.
Until I actually computed the numbers and wrote it down in terms of per average session, the reality of the situation kinda shocked me too. You know how those croupiers shovel all those chips down the hole after every spin of the roulette wheel? The average LLSNL table kinda ain't too far off from that, it just does it a heckuva lot more discreetly, lol.
GcluelessitiswhatitisnoobG
I've also started writing down the rake I pay, if anyone is curious (for 20 sessions, 71h, ~2600 hands) yo but don't travel to Germany to play here pls, don't need the game to be tougher.
If I've mathed right, it looks like you're paying $9/hr in rake? Considering my table takes off $172/hr (completely ignoring BBJ/prom drops and tips), this would evenly distribute amongst 9 players as $19/hr. Of course I'm assuming a tight player will pay less than their fare share in rake (I think?), but at first glance it looks like your rake is awesome. I'd assume a very small maximum rake cap of like $5 or something?
GcluelessawesomerakenoobG
Are winning if there was no rake or are not winning if there was no rake?
Sure, if you have a very thin edge and you are barely beating the game, rake could be the factor that drives you to losing, if the rake is absurdly huge the game might not be beatable. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether you are beating the game or not. If you aren't beating the game you have two options - increase your skill edge or find a different g
You're responding to me but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying or asking? '' the only thing that matters is whether you are beating the game or not'' sure, don't think I said otherwise, but it is possible rake is so high the game simply isn't beatable so for someone to essentially say ''rake doesn't matter'' is just asinine.
The idea that you should pass on playing a spot that you know is EV plus because you'll pay rake is just silly. I don't think there are that many situations you are going to find yourself in a low stakes game, where your edge is only the size of the rake and the play goes from being plus EV to minus EV. At least not if you are talking about the typical rake that you see in US c
Not sure if we're about to debate definitions here but if a spot is PLUS EV we're not passing on it because the spot is PLUS EV if the impact of high rake makes that spot NEGATIVE EV it's no longer PLUS EV.
I am still waiting for somebody to point out a concrete situation where you would play a hand materially differently if there is rake versus if there isn't rake.
You would play pre-flop materially differently in a raked environment vs a non raked environment. Which is where the decision-point is for playing marginally +EV hands. People aren't really challenging this anymore, so I'm surprised to see you are especially when solvers give you about 100 different rake structures and they all affect opening and calling ranges significantly.
Don't forget that when you stack someone their stack has often been obliterated by rake/drops/tips, so you're probably paying even more than you computed.
G****rakeG
Yeah, that's fair. I don't think it's realistic to truly account for that factor, and the aforementioned "savings" of being felted for less. There is of course the question of how it would affect rebuy/add-on timing, etc. so it quickly becomes difficult to model.
I think it's a pretty reasonable baseline though in terms of rake paid, and I do like being aware of my gross vs. net winrate at least in a broad sense since 8.6 bb/hr is a very significant amount (although there is no higher stake NLH [ish, betting is capped] game available in my room, only LHE and Omaha).
At a minimum it's eye-opening the first time you really track it. "10% of what you win" is so easy to misrepresent mentally and I think that conceit works really well on almost everyone, even though it's 20% of what you win (your bet is raked too) and of course no rakeback for losing.
If I've mathed right, it looks like you're paying $9/hr in rake? Considering my table takes off $172/hr (completely ignoring BBJ/prom drops and tips), this would evenly distribute amongst 9 players as $19/hr. Of course I'm assuming a tight player will pay less than their fare share in rake (I think?), but at first glance it looks like your rake is awesome. I'd assume a very
Yeah, math is correct.
Rake cap is 50 (the entries to the right are individual rake paid for pots, so there's several where I paid 30 for a single pot). But rake percentage is low; it's a step-based system that fluctuates between 0% and 4%.
This also means small pots aren't taxed disproportionately, which I like.
We also have no promotions of any kind, so you don't get any of it back. But, yea, it's still really nice.
It's not standardized, so totally depends on the casino, and you generally don't even find the information online. (Speaking just for Germany.)
You're responding to me but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying or asking? '' the only thing that matters is whether you are beating the game or not'' sure, don't think I said otherwise, but it is possible rake is so high the game simply isn't beatable so for someone to essentially say ''rake doesn't matter'' is just asinine.
It isn't that it "doesn't matter" - it's just that it is generally a factor that you can't change. If you have casino A and casino B next to each other and B has lower rake, then play at B. Should you play at A or B? Well on rake alone you should probably play at B- however you probably should base your decision on the big picture. If B has better players or smaller caps, your profit might be lower despite the lower rake. You should play at thegame that is the most profitable for you. Rake may or may not be the deciding factor.
Not sure if we're about to debate definitions here but if a spot is PLUS EV we're not passing on it because the spot is PLUS EV if the impact of high rake makes that spot NEGATIVE EV it's no longer PLUS EV.
That's what I'm asking for: Define that spot in an average $1/$3 game. Exactly what spot are you deciding "I'm not playing this because of the rake, if there were no rake I would play it"
I contend that at average US casino rakes in the average $1/$3 game, such a spot is so exceptionally rare that it doesn't matter. Even most really good players at $1/$3 aren't cutting the edge that thin on their EV where the extra $7 makes the material difference in proceeding with the hand or not proceeding with it.
You would play pre-flop materially differently in a raked environment vs a non raked environment. Which is where the decision-point is for playing marginally +EV hands. People aren't really challenging this anymore, so I'm surprised to see you are especially when solvers give you about 100 different rake structures and they all affect opening and calling ranges significantly.
In theory, against a solver yes. But in theory against a solver you should never be opening 5x. In strict theory, you shouldn't be playing 99% of the hands the way that you do when playing humans at $1/$3 and if you were playing a solver you'd be exploited like crazy and be a huge loser. If you are following preflop opening charts based on rake conditions, and raising to the solver-approved raise sizes, you are leaving a ton of money on the table.
Exactly what hand are you playing/excluding based on rake. Because I play at both time-raked and pot raked games, and I don't consider rake when making my decisions on what to open. You look at a marginal spot in theory like opening K7s from thr LJ - in general, that's a spot I pass up on unless there are specific player dynamics in play. My default is I'm just folding it because if I raise and get what is likely 3-4 callers that sucks for K7s. But GTO Wizard is opening K7s from the LJ with frequencies varying depending upon the rake structure. I'd suggest that at an average $1/$3 table, raising to the size that you need to in order to get heads-up semi regularly K7s is probably -EV regardless of rake structure in live $1/$3. Most of us are probably drawing the line in MP around KTs, maybe K9s and some nits are going KJs+ in any $1/$3 game. Those really marginal hands like K8s/K7s/K6s are probably being passed on anyway, even if there isn't rake because we just don't need to cut it that close to be profitable vs population.
I'm genuinely curious if you came and played in Oklahoma playing the 10% to $6 + $1 rake, and then we go to Texas and pay the hourly, what hand are you opening in the LJ in OK but not opening in TX?
It isn't that it "doesn't matter" - it's just that it is generally a factor that you can't change. If you have casino A and casino B next to each other and B has lower rake, then play at B. Should you play at A or B Well on rake alone you should probably play at B- however you probably should base your decision on the big picture. If B has better players or smaller caps, your p
I think we're saying the same thing honestly. My one and only point is that rake matters but I'm obviously not disputing the fact that hourly > anything else.
I can give you an actual example from a few years ago when they opened a new casino in Toronto. The rake in those games is so high, 99% of players can't beat the rake. If memory serves me it was something like 10% $20 cap at 1/3 with the max buy-in being 100bb. I have no idea if it's changed since and I don't play 1/3 but that is a game you should avoid at all costs.
To me, it sounded like you and Freecard would play this game regardless because you can't control the rake. I think that's ridiculous. If that's not what you meant I apologize.
That's what I'm asking for: Define that spot in an average $1/$3 game. Exactly what spot are you deciding "I'm not playing this because of the rake, if there were no rake I would play it"
I contend that at average US casino rakes in the average $1/$3 game, such a spot is so exceptionally rare that it doesn't matter. Even most really good players at $1/$3 aren't cutting the edge that thin on their EV where the extra $7 makes the material difference in proceeding with the hand or not proceeding with it.
I answered this I believe. The decision point is pre-flop.
In theory, against a solver yes. But in theory against a solver you should never be opening 5x. In strict theory, you shouldn't be playing 99% of the hands the way that you do when playing humans at $1/$3 and if you were playing a solver you'd be exploited like crazy and be a huge loser. If you are following preflop opening charts based on rake conditions, and raising to the solver-approved raise sizes, you are leaving a ton of money on the table.
Exactly what hand are you playing/excluding based on rake. Because I play at both time-raked and pot raked games, and I don't consider rake when making my decisions on what to open. You look at a marginal spot in theory like opening K7s from thr LJ - in general, that's a spot I pass up on unless there are specific player dynamics in play. My default is I'm just folding it because if I raise and get what is likely 3-4 callers that sucks for K7s. But GTO Wizard is opening K7s from the LJ with frequencies varying depending upon the rake structure. I'd suggest that at an average $1/$3 table, raising to the size that you need to in order to get heads-up semi regularly K7s is probably -EV regardless of rake structure in live $1/$3. Most of us are probably drawing the line in MP around KTs, maybe K9s and some nits are going KJs+ in any $1/$3 game. Those really marginal hands like K8s/K7s/K6s are probably being passed on anyway, even if there isn't rake because we just don't need to cut it that close to be profitable vs population.
I'm genuinely curious if you came and played in Oklahoma playing the 10% to $6 + $1 rake, and then we go to Texas and pay the hourly, what hand are you opening in the LJ in OK but not opening in TX
You seem to think the decision is only based on what hands we open and not on what hands we call and 3b. In a time-raked environment we SHOULD see more flops. Sure if you want to argue that it doesn't matter at 1/3 because everyone is bad, yes, I agree with that 100%.
In theory, against a solver yes. But in theory against a solver you should never be opening 5x. In strict theory, you shouldn't be playing 99% of the hands the way that you do when playing humans at $1/$3 and if you were playing a solver you'd be exploited like crazy and be a huge loser. If you are following preflop opening charts based on rake conditions, and raising to the solver-approved raise sizes, you are leaving a ton of money on the table.
I don't disagree with this. I was just pointing out that rake does affect your rfi, 3b and flatting ranges. Nobody disputes this and solvers have a ton of rake structures for exactly that reason. I was under the impression you were denying this but it seems you agree.
Maybe this is a better way to put it but unfortunately impossible to prove so feel free to ignore.
If Holdem Manager existed for live poker, I think you'd be surprised at how poorly some hands are doing for you that you've convinced yourself you can play profitably and 1 factor for that will absolutely be rake.
It isn't that it "doesn't matter" - it's just that it is generally a factor that you can't change. If you have casino A and casino B next to each other and B has lower rake, then play at B. Should you play at A or B Well on rake alone you should probably play at B- however you probably should base your decision on the big picture. If B has better players or smaller caps, your p
You need to also consider the scenario where casino A and B are 1000 miles apart, due to regulatory restrictions. If casino A's cap is 25% higher than B's, well, it still might not be worthwhile travelling to B due to cost, commute time, family reasons etc. In this case, making lobbying efforts to encourage casino A to lower its rake might be worth the effort. There are historical examples where large, government sanctioned monopolies (e.g. utility companies) can be pressured to lower prices. Casinos, in this respect, rarely operate as free-market businesses; they are constrained by regulatory forces to varying degrees (look at the fight to win an operating licence in New York, for instance; i.e., it's not just a matter of casually setting up a stall in your local town square). Your example assumes we are in poker marketplace like Vegas, Texas or LA where there are multiple operators within close proximity to one another, and, who, therefore, inevitably set prices according to market forces, unless they're able to collude in some manner and/or have a fixed consumer base whose demand is relatively inelastic, due to loyalty programs, etc.
If Holdem Manager existed for live poker, I think you'd be surprised at how poorly some hands are doing for you that you've convinced yourself you can play profitably and 1 factor for that will absolutely be rake.
lol, you don’t know me - a nit at heart
I don’t know what your criticism was this time exactly, I play 1/3 because it’s the only game in town, not because it’s ideal.
But to say I shouldn’t play at all, because I can’t beat that type of game… well you’re wrong about that one sir.
The comment you quoted was directed at Yamihere, not you. I know ur a nit.
I don’t know what your criticism was this time exactly, I play 1/3 because it’s the only game in town, not because it’s ideal.
But to say I shouldn’t play at all, because I can’t beat that type of game… well you’re wrong about that one sir.
Did you read the whole post? I don't think anyone can beat the example I gave which was ''10% $20 cap at 1/3 with the max buy-in being 100bb.''
Nothing was said about the game you currently play, I'm sure you're beating it.
Well I would play the game because I'm not a for profit player. When I lived in SC, the local games were illegal and got busted every couple years. They charged 15% uncapped, plus the risk that the game got raided and you lose everything. Nobody was beating the game - it was about drinking enough of the free booze that you got your money's worth and having a good night out.
But yeah, if you're trying to play for a living some games probably aren't beatable at a profit level high enough to replace McDonald's. Moving is likely a better use of your time than trying to convince a monopoly or oligopoly to change the rake. Not every profession is possible in every location.
