Beating the rake

[sternroolz]

The game was a bit looser/calling station than any B&M game
I have ever played in. An expert player against novices at stud8/o has a bigger advantage than in limit holdem. This is due to the multi way pots and the ability to kill calling stations when others in the pot have made hands, or very good draws to the nuts. It also happened that the two weakest players in the game were really easy to read. So it simply was going to be a profitable game.

My point still stands that introducing a rake to this game cuts my profits nearly in half. I'll also note that the weak players will see their money disappear faster, perhaps causing them to play relatively tighter.

I assume the $47 per hand max rake is a mistake on your part and you meant to say $47/per hour rake. And I wouldn't consider a game that can only be theoretically beaten for 1/6th of a big bet an hour to be a beatable nor playable game.


[ QUOTE ]
If you can average 8BB/hr with no rake wouldn't you still be able to overcome a $47 max rake per hand at a similar 3/6 game?

I only ask because you wrote, "BTW, $4-8 LHE in loose games(ie games where you can create large volume) is beatable up to a $5 rake($4 drop, $1 jackpot drop)."

[/ QUOTE ]

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The game was a bit looser/calling station than any B&M game
I have ever played in. An expert player against novices at stud8/o has a bigger advantage than in limit holdem. This is due to the multi way pots and the ability to kill calling stations when others in the pot have made hands, or very good draws to the nuts. It also happened that the two weakest players in the game were really easy to read. So it simply was going to be a profitable game.

My point still stands that introducing a rake to this game cuts my profits nearly in half. I'll also note that the weak players will see their money disappear faster, perhaps causing them to play relatively tighter.

I assume the $47 per hand max rake is a mistake on your part and you meant to say $47/per hour rake. And I wouldn't consider a game that can only be theoretically beaten for 1/6th of a big bet an hour to be a beatable nor playable game.


[ QUOTE ]
If you can average 8BB/hr with no rake wouldn't you still be able to overcome a $47 max rake per hand at a similar 3/6 game?

I only ask because you wrote, "BTW, $4-8 LHE in loose games(ie games where you can create large volume) is beatable up to a $5 rake($4 drop, $1 jackpot drop)."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

One example that seems to work is put it into perspective in a bigger game. Let's say we're talking 4-8 with a $4 drop. How would players like to play 10-20 with a $10 drop? Would someone go for that? C'mon, it's the same ratio...

Tell me again how it doesn't take that much of a bite? Not to mention, the $4 drops on 3-6 games.

They're beatable. But not by near the margin that many seem to think.

b

[beach_bum]

If you assume you get 40 hands per hour and that you win between 5% and 10% of the pots, you would win at least 2 pots per hour, so the rake may well be over $8/hr for you.

Here's a question to ask yourself:

Would you play in a $10-$20 game where an average of $10 was taken out of two thirds of the pots? That's only about $270 per hour taken off the table.

Would you play in a $30-$60 game where an average of $30 was taken out of two thirds of the pots? That's only about $800 per hour taken off the table.

Would you play in a $100-$200 game where an average of $100 was taken out of two thirds of the pots? That's only about $2700 per hour taken off the table.

[midas]

It's always funny to me that people make broad generalizations of certain games - ie the Bellagio 4-8 is beatable vs stay away from the Monte Carlo during the weekdays. The answer is always it depends on the table profile. I used to think the Bellagio 4-8 game during the week was a local rock garden - last month I was completely wrong - the games were great (even some of the locals had dumbed down). I also tried Paris's crappy poker area thinking it would be fishy but nothing but weak-tight locals folding to every raise.

It just depends.

[jfk]

The biggest opponent any good low limit player faces is the effect of the rake and tips.

In a typical local casino which offers three tiers of LHE, 3/6, 6/12 and 15/30. The rake is a uniform $4 and tips average about $2. The tipping at 15/30 is probably less generous than at 3/6 or 6/12, but for the sake of simplicity we'll call them even.

Assuming 35 hands an hour (which may be generous), $140 is disappering down the hole and another $70 is going to the dealer, for a typical total of $210 per hour of rake/tips.

The full games are nine handed, but with the floor walkers, smokers, pai gow junkies, barflies and the like, seven players is closer to the actual mean.

Even a tight player is going to carry about 10% of the rake burden under these conditions, which would come to about $14/hour. If he/she wishes to tighten up on the tips and throw in a buck in all but the largest pots, that still another $3.5 in cost, for a low end average of about $17.50 an hour in cost.

If thought of as a ratio, each 3/6 hand sees six chips come off the table per hand. The 6/12 game loses three chips per hand while the 15/30 table sees just one (and a fraction) disappear. In an hour, the 3/6 table is getting drained of two and a half racks of chips.

It is my opinion that the advantages of the bad play that one will see are not enough to make a 3/6 casino/card room game beatable under this sort of cost structure. At 6/12 it is possible to eke out some money but I am unaware of anyone who has kept accurate records who is $10 or more and hour ahead. In other words, a "6/12 grinder" is going to make less than any employee in the card room, including the guys washing dishes in the back.

Only at the higher levels, say 10/20 and above, can a player expect to make a "reasonable" income.

Yes, there is generally worse play at the lower levels, though it is not my experience that there is enough of it to overcome the handicap of rake and tips. If you're sitting at a table with competent players and flops are typically 3 handed, the rake/tips will slowly bleed the table dry.

Anyone playing live games for reaonons of profit at levels lower than 10/20 should only be doing so as a training ground for higher level live play. Moreover, if a player truly beating 6/12 and the rake/tips handicap unquestionably has the skills to move up in limit.

I'm sure someone out there is going to tell me I'm dead wrong (or don't play well enough) and I would be eager to see the proof.

[midas]

JFK:

Your calculations, which I agree with, would indicate that most "smart" low limit players should have no problem paying an all-in (rake+tips) time charge of anything less than $15 per hour. You don't play poker for free, so the $15 per hour is a just another cost of playing like gas money.

In my above average, amateur, recreational play, my strategy is to win a smaller amount of very large pots. Thus the rake only impacts me when the rake per pot times the number of wins per hour exceeds the theorectical and unavoidable time charge.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest opponent any good low limit player faces is the effect of the rake and tips.

In a typical local casino which offers three tiers of LHE, 3/6, 6/12 and 15/30. The rake is a uniform $4 and tips average about $2. The tipping at 15/30 is probably less generous than at 3/6 or 6/12, but for the sake of simplicity we'll call them even.

Assuming 35 hands an hour (which may be generous), $140 is disappering down the hole and another $70 is going to the dealer, for a typical total of $210 per hour of rake/tips.

The full games are nine handed, but with the floor walkers, smokers, pai gow junkies, barflies and the like, seven players is closer to the actual mean.

Even a tight player is going to carry about 10% of the rake burden under these conditions, which would come to about $14/hour. If he/she wishes to tighten up on the tips and throw in a buck in all but the largest pots, that still another $3.5 in cost, for a low end average of about $17.50 an hour in cost.

If thought of as a ratio, each 3/6 hand sees six chips come off the table per hand. The 6/12 game loses three chips per hand while the 15/30 table sees just one (and a fraction) disappear. In an hour, the 3/6 table is getting drained of two and a half racks of chips.

It is my opinion that the advantages of the bad play that one will see are not enough to make a 3/6 casino/card room game beatable under this sort of cost structure. At 6/12 it is possible to eke out some money but I am unaware of anyone who has kept accurate records who is $10 or more and hour ahead. In other words, a "6/12 grinder" is going to make less than any employee in the card room, including the guys washing dishes in the back.

Only at the higher levels, say 10/20 and above, can a player expect to make a "reasonable" income.

Yes, there is generally worse play at the lower levels, though it is not my experience that there is enough of it to overcome the handicap of rake and tips. If you're sitting at a table with competent players and flops are typically 3 handed, the rake/tips will slowly bleed the table dry.

Anyone playing live games for reaonons of profit at levels lower than 10/20 should only be doing so as a training ground for higher level live play. Moreover, if a player truly beating 6/12 and the rake/tips handicap unquestionably has the skills to move up in limit.

I'm sure someone out there is going to tell me I'm dead wrong (or don't play well enough) and I would be eager to see the proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rake on a 4-8 game with a $4 drop + $1 tip is beatable.


[ QUOTE ]
If you're sitting at a table with competent players and flops are typically 3 handed, the rake/tips will slowly bleed the table dry.


[/ QUOTE ]

This type of game at the 4-8 level or lower is about non existent.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone playing live games for reaonons of profit at levels lower than 10/20 should only be doing so as a training ground for higher level live play. Moreover, if a player truly beating 6/12 and the rake/tips handicap unquestionably has the skills to move up in limit.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree here. Though remember, he may be on 6-12 due to bankroll issues. But yes, no one is making decent money on a 4-8 game. But they could still be making money.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the rake only impacts me when the rake per pot times the number of wins per hour exceeds the theorectical and unavoidable time charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're saying if you go on a little rush and exceed that time charge you're losing money for each hand you win that you're paying above that charge? Please.

You won't know the rake effect on a session by session basis. Especially when some of those nights you might not win hardly any pots while on other nights you can't miss.

How do you 'plan' and 'stategize' to keep that even and below the time charge during a session?

Your thinking is still too shortterm.

b

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
In my above average, amateur, recreational play, my strategy is to win a smaller amount of very large pots. Thus the rake only impacts me when the rake per pot times the number of wins per hour exceeds the theoretical and unavoidable time charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Midas,

Even a time charge at or around $15 per hour a quality player sitting at 6/12 is going to struggle to net $10 an hour.

Moreover, while it would be ideal to win a your share of the very large pots, that is typically not under a player's control. I'm sure you're not playing J5o off the button just because six players have limped. Assuming you're playing according to Miller/Sklansky stating hand principles, you may sometimes be influenced by number of players with your late position and blind decisions but usually pot size is primarily going to be left up to the vagaries of your opponents decisions.

While a good player can assert some influence onto the size of the pot, in general that player cannot always have direct control over self-selecting playing only in pots that are large. Playing decisions have to be based on decisions of EV, regardless of pot size.

The impact of rake and tips at low limits can also blunt some of the tools a better player would use at higher limits. With a $4 rake in a 3/6 game, there's little sense in a blind steal from the cutoff seat when you know that the BB is going to come along the vast majority of the time. To my mind it makes little sense to chuck in $6 to create an $8 pot (before tip) unless I have a playing advantage that can make up for that gap.

If I misunderstood what you meant, please let me know.

bernie,

I'm not getting a lot of 3/6 or 4/8 work in these days but those times when I am on such a table it is not all that unusual for the norm to be small pots with limited multiway action. Again a big part of this is that a full table here is nine handed and tables don't normally run full. When going with seven or eight players, you still need at least half of those at the table to chuck in chips to see the flop with four. I see that happen less and less.

Fundamentally, I don't see scratching out a single digit amount of dollars per hour as earning. I see it as a corollary benefit for those play poker for reasons other than profit. Perhaps 3/6 or 4/8 is "beatable", but no one (normal) would work a regular job for the wages offered by these "beatable" games.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Fundamentally, I don't see scratching out a single digit amount of dollars per hour as earning. I see it as a corollary benefit for those play poker for reasons other than profit. Perhaps 3/6 or 4/8 is "beatable", but no one (normal) would work a regular job for the wages offered by these "beatable" games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree that no one is playing 4-8 as their sole income. Many retireds will to supplement it a bit and waste some time waiting for their social security checks. I was thinking more in terms of building a bankroll, not making alot of cash. Basically, as a stepping stone/learning process on the way to higher limits. If one can't beat a 4-8 game described, good luck in the bigger games. 3-6 is a much tougher game to beat rakewise than 4-8. In some places around here, where they take $2 for the JP drop on top of the $3 in normal rake, I'm not even sure it's beatable.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not getting a lot of 3/6 or 4/8 work in these days but those times when I am on such a table it is not all that unusual for the norm to be small pots with limited multiway action.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be in a place that has a small base of poker players. Which, imo, is not the majority. Most games I see at that limit are tons of action.

In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a tight aggressive 4-8 game. Hell, I've only really been in one Tight/rockgarden (live)10-20 game in a year. Maybe a bit more. I remember it because Slavic told me I couldn't pay him $20 an hour to sit in it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

b