How much do all players pay in rake and where do we get money?

[lubenica47]

Who brings new money to pokerrooms? Addicted gamblers or just begginers who play for one week and bust 200$? Are there so many of them to feed regular winners? Where comes the money to feed 25/50 winners?

[Andynan]

from the federal reserve, didnt u know ?

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Who brings new money to pokerrooms? Addicted gamblers or just begginers who play for one week and bust 200$? Are there so many of them to feed regular winners? Where comes the money to feed 25/50 winners?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something I have thought about. First, you have to figure what is coming off the table per hour in terms of rake & tips. Let's say that number is $200 per hour.

Then you have to evaluate the game and see if there is 1 or more players who will combine to lose at least twice the house take per hour. If so, then the good players at the table should, over time, divide the excess losses among themselves.

With rake, most players are losing players. These players have jobs or other funds that support their poker habit. Perhaps they are bookies or drug dealers who have a bunch of cash. Perhaps they are rich guys who want to compete against the best. Perhaps they are gambling addicts who play with the rent money or borrow against their retirement to lose at poker. Perhaps they are a beginner who has not learned how to play.

Of the winning players, most are marginal winners who take too much risk of ruin and go "poker broke" from time to time. These players rarely dip heavily into non-poker funds in order to keep playing.

There are very few long term consistent cash game winners. The biggest cash game winners, however, win far less than the house. It's good to be the house.

[FooSH]

When someone wins a few $K in a low buy-in, large field MTT, they'll often donate a chunk to a cashgame outside their skill level.

[veggies]

[ QUOTE ]
Who brings new money to pokerrooms? Addicted gamblers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Start looking up all of the people you play in mtts. You would be very suprised at how many people have prizes over several thousand dollars playing low buy-in mtts ($20 or less) and still have a negative ROI. Its the people who gamble too much that keep the money coming in.

[veggies]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone wins a few $K in a low buy-in, large field MTT, they'll often donate a chunk to a cashgame outside their skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also very true. I have done it, just as I'm sure many of us have when we were first getting started. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone wins a few $K in a low buy-in, large field MTT, they'll often donate a chunk to a cashgame outside their skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but it's FUN.

[JennEric Screen Name]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but it's FUN.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually an important point. I you factor in the utility gains from the entertainment value of playing poker, it may be that poker is a positive sum game (for players).

[XxGeneralxX]

winning poker players win simply by having a positive expectation in the games they play in. losing players have a negative expectation. There are much more players with a negative expectation than players with a positive expectation. This is (for the most part) because of the rake. If poker was a zero-sum game there would be much more winners.

poker gets tricky because it is very common for players to be +ev in one game and -ev in another. Also, players can win profits in the short term in a game where he has a negative expectation. This creates an illusion.

The illusion poker creates is that (for the most part) it is very hard to tell whether you have a positive or negative expectation. This is why poker is profitable to some players and very dangerous to others.