The Affect of Rake, No Rake, and Rakeback on Preflop Strategy

[Benjamin]

It is commonly accepted knowledge that the presence of rake on a game causes some marginally profitable hands to become unprofitable as compared to an unraked game, so that a player should adjust his starting hand selection somewhat tighter.

But what about rakeback? More specifically, consider the case of 100% rakeback, distributed on a dealt-hands basis, so that the rake is taken from each pot, and distributed equally to each of the players dealt into a given hand, with payment once a week, a la WPEX.

Now, whether you play a hand, or fold it, you receive a share of the rake from that hand.

How does this affect strategy as compared to the raked model?

Since you get paid rakeback on every hand regardless of whether you play it or not, that payment does not dictate any change in strategy at all, compared to a raked game. The cards in your hand and whether you play them, are unrelated to the weekly rakeback payment.

To put it another way, the pots you are chasing are the same size as in the raked model, nothing else about gameplay has changed, so your strategy should not change.

So, while you should loosen up in an unraked game, you should not do so in a dealt-hands method 100% rakeback game.

Conversely, if a site wants to promote looser games, then they should avoid awarding rakeback using the dealt-hands method. Instead, they should adopt a rakeback method that rewards looseness. Either return the rake to the winner of a the pot, to recreate a rakefree dynamic, divide it equally among those who see a flop, or divide it according to contribution to the pot.

I'm not sure how big the tightening effect of dealt-hands rakeback is, compared to rakefree, but I'm sure the effect is real.

Benjamin

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
It is commonly accepted knowledge that the presence of rake on a game causes some marginally profitable hands to become unprofitable as compared to an unraked game, so that a player should adjust his starting hand selection somewhat tighter.

[/ QUOTE ]
One situation where rake has a big effect on the playability of hands is stealing from the button in micro-limit games (eg: ~5% rake). Against a BB who ignores the high rake then it will make alot of the marginal steals -EV for you, whereas if they fold (correctly) to avoid taking -EV situations themselves you can steal with a much wider range. The same goes for if you are in the BB: if you fold correctly to avoid making -EV calls then you are letting the button take advantage of you and allowing him to open up his range...

This is basically the same problem as occurs in SNGs when bad players "spite call" you with hands which are -EV for both you and them - the only difference is SNG "spite calls" pass the equity you both lose to the other players whereas here the equity is just given to the site in rake. See this post for how to treat the problem as the "iterated prisoner's dilemma" and use the "tit-for-tat" strategy to counter the ability of players to exploit your (correct) -EV folds.

[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, if a site wants to promote looser games, then they should avoid awarding rakeback using the dealt-hands method.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the sites truly wanted to make looser games they would abolish rakeback completely. The net effect of rakeback is to allow break-even nits to carry on playing; remove the rakeback and these nits would no longer be able to play (profitably) and the games would start to loosen up.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[dragonystic]

Your argument is sound, atleast in proving that proper strategy should not be altered from a rake site to a dealt rakeback site. (Not necessarily a bad thing IMHO.)

However, you haven't shown that changing the method of calculation would have real world effects in promoting looseness; only that a looser strategy would be optimal. As we all know, fish don't strive to play optimally. Nor will they flock to WPEX if the method of calculation is changed. Do you have any evidence that changing the method would loosen up the games? Many sites have switched before, and no site, to my knowledge, has shown an improvement in the quality of games.

People play poker how they want to, not according to which method of rb calculation the site they are on uses.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
People play poker how they want to, not according to which method of rb calculation the site they are on uses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. It is highly unlikely that the casual player is going to acknowledge the change, and then slightly loosen his starting requirements. This would have to happen in a substantial number of players to have the desire affect. I just don't see Players saying hey, the rakeback changed thus I'm promoting A9o to raise in the hijack and K10 in the CO.

[NoChance]

There were a number of people on these forums that fled from UB when they changed the way you earn points from Dealt to Contributed. Most obviously earned less points when this switch was made. Couldn't the same argument be made for rakeback?

Put it this way. Before UB changed to contributed, there were a ton of people on UB that would reload bonuses and then just sit at as many 2NL tables as possible and only play high pocket pairs or nut hands that flopped when in the BB. They were earning more points just sitting there than the cost of the blinds per round. In my mind, if it is exploitable then it can't be correct.

They would typically earn .9 or .8 UB points ($0.08 or $0.09) per round while only paying $0.03 (blinds) to play. I know this is might not mean much to most who play at much higher stakes but for some of the small stakes players, this is how they were building bankrolls.

Dealt = preferred for my TAG style of play
Contributed = most fair for all

[RevAgain]

[ QUOTE ]
They would typically earn .9 or .8 UB points ($0.08 or $0.09) per round while only paying $0.03 (blinds) to play. I know this is might not mean much to most who play at much higher stakes but for some of the small stakes players, this is how they were building bankrolls.

Dealt = preferred for my TAG style of play
Contributed = most fair for all

[/ QUOTE ]

What on earth are you talking about? They are taking bonus money, not money from the other players' pockets. Why do you care if they are making 'so much' from the bonus they can afford to keep folding their blinds away to any player who wants to steal them and never steal themselves?

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They would typically earn .9 or .8 UB points ($0.08 or $0.09) per round while only paying $0.03 (blinds) to play. I know this is might not mean much to most who play at much higher stakes but for some of the small stakes players, this is how they were building bankrolls.

Dealt = preferred for my TAG style of play
Contributed = most fair for all

[/ QUOTE ]

What on earth are you talking about? They are taking bonus money, not money from the other players' pockets. Why do you care if they are making 'so much' from the bonus they can afford to keep folding their blinds away to any player who wants to steal them and never steal themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]
They take up the seats that fish could sit in?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[NoChance]

The two are comparable. A pending UB bonus accumulated the same way rakeback does at WPEX until UB made the change.

Many have argued that by playing a tight style at WPEX they actually earn more rakeback than they put in.

[Blue Lagoon]

[ QUOTE ]
One situation where rake has a big effect on the playability of hands is stealing from the button in micro-limit games (eg: ~5% rake).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only in micro-limit. PokerStars $5-$10 limit is 5% rake, and it's more BB/100h than the $1-$2!!

I never understood why there are so many arguments, saying that we should play more hands at the bigger limits because the rake is smaller.
I think that if you don't play at least, at least $10-$20, it should not be the case.

Any thoughts?

[JavaNut]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They would typically earn .9 or .8 UB points ($0.08 or $0.09) per round while only paying $0.03 (blinds) to play. I know this is might not mean much to most who play at much higher stakes but for some of the small stakes players, this is how they were building bankrolls.

Dealt = preferred for my TAG style of play
Contributed = most fair for all

[/ QUOTE ]

What on earth are you talking about? They are taking bonus money, not money from the other players' pockets. Why do you care if they are making 'so much' from the bonus they can afford to keep folding their blinds away to any player who wants to steal them and never steal themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no difference between bonus money and rakeback money, the rake is used to pay both. It is the way it is calculated that can be different, bonus programs may have a cap in that you can only get $75 per month, no matter how much rake you yourself pay, in that case you play more sites and fullfill bonuses there as well. That is why some sites pays rakeback as an unlimited bonus instead to keep their customers.