Beating the rake

[midas]

When talking about B&M casinos the subject of "beating the rake" come up often - especially in lower limit games.

About a month ago - I'm playing 4-8 at the Bellagio and the average stack is about $300

An obvious regular says to me during table talk "the rake here is brutal, tough to win at the Big B."

I reply - "I don't care about the rake - I'm more concerned about how much dumb (and loose) money is at this table. Over 7 hours I make $500 and the decent regular makes about $300.

Who is right? My view has always been that the "beating the rake concept" only applied in laboratory conditions when all players were the same ability and there is only a finite amount of money in play.

In low limit games, if I don't see at least 4 players to the flop over 75% of the time I look for a better table.

[Man of Means]

You are both wrong. A $4 rake is of course beatable at a 4/8 game where the players are not very good.

But the right answer to his plaint is "Yeah, I hear you man, I'm just here to have fun and maybe win a few pots."

[fishyak]

It is like the tides of the ocean. When the tides are flowing strongly - someone is going to beat the rake and someone is going to get beaten.

I did sit at a table for 2 hrs. once where the cards and people were both dull. I looked around and EVERYONE was down. The rake was the only winner. So if your table has a "slack tide" then it is time to fish in new waters by changing tables. When the tide is flowing strongly the rake is no problem.

As to the commentary, I like to APPEAR harmless at the table and I like Man of Means style in that regard. He gave a pleasant answer without saying anything about HIS game.

[sternroolz]

[ QUOTE ]
When talking about B&M casinos the subject of "beating the rake" come up often - especially in lower limit games.

About a month ago - I'm playing 4-8 at the Bellagio and the average stack is about $300

An obvious regular says to me during table talk "the rake here is brutal, tough to win at the Big B."

I reply - "I don't care about the rake - I'm more concerned about how much dumb (and loose) money is at this table. Over 7 hours I make $500 and the decent regular makes about $300.

Who is right? My view has always been that the "beating the rake concept" only applied in laboratory conditions when all players were the same ability and there is only a finite amount of money in play.

In low limit games, if I don't see at least 4 players to the flop over 75% of the time I look for a better table.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are incorrect on a couple of things.

First off, if you view poker as a "I make x each time I play", rather than each session as part of one long continuous session, you are taking a very results oriented approach that doesn't give you an accurate reflection of how your play is.

Now that you know this, its easy to see where rake fits in. Say you average 1.5 BB per hour....$12 an hour at $4-8. The rake is being taken out, even if you do not notice it in your results. If the average rake per pot is $3, then it is costing you $3 each time you win a pot. Now because you are a good player, you may be theoretically paying rake less than that of other players because you win fewer and larger pots. But you are still paying rake.

To put this in another context, I played a very low limit stud 8/o with some friends. We wound up playing appx 50 session. I averaged appx 8 BB per hour in that game. There was no rake. I have played in $3-6 games in the casino that approximate the condiditons in that game. But the rake in the casino at a $3-6 game is roughly 4bb an hour. I have no hope or idea that I can make 8bb an hour in the long run at a casino game and the main reason is due to the rake.

So yeah, the rake costs everyone.

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). Very tight games at this level are not(try stealing enough blinds to overcome a $24/hour drop).

[Wake up CALL]

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)."

[midas]

Stern:

Interesting response and assuming no finite money supply, a few other comments:

1. A player is only effected by the rake in pots they win - what does that have to do with $ per hour win rate? If you play for an hour and win no hands - the rake has not impacted you. If you play for 10 hours and win 1 huge pot the rake has impacted you once.

2. The only time that you absolutely know the rake has beaten you is if you leave the table even, having won and lost many pots. If you're up anything over time you've technically beaten the rake. If you're down over time - you don't know if the rake has been a factor.

3. If you're playing professionally and you need to put in many hours to grind out a decent income, you are probably forced to play in very tight games when you feel more impacted by the rake.

4. Last thought - if you think of the rake as the "cost of playing poker" all you really care about is how much you win over time and whether you hourly winnings exceed that of you're average McDonald's fry guy!!

[growlers]

I played a 14 hour session of $4-8 at Red Rock, which has a brutal rake of 10% up to $4 plus the $1 jacpot drop. So any pot you win that is $40 is getting $5 + $1 toke going out of it. So most hands that get to the turn are raked the max. So if the average pot you win has say $3 rake / $1 jackpot / $1 tip going out * 30 hands per hour (conservative)= $150/ hr going off the table.
Now granted, I got ridiculously drunk and could barely see my cards at the end, wound up losing $60 for the session. Very depressed that I lost against this parade of slack-jawed troglodytes but wasn't so upset when I did the math and figured out that just to last 14 hours in my drunken state I had to win maybe $325 off of them to pay my rake and cocktail tips. Depressing math.

[n.s.]

[ QUOTE ]
Over 7 hours I make $500 and the decent regular makes about $300.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm sure that you and a decent regular can beat this game for roughly 9BB/hr and 5BB/hr respectively...

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
1. A player is only effected by the rake in pots they win - what does that have to do with $ per hour win rate? If you play for an hour and win no hands - the rake has not impacted you. If you play for 10 hours and win 1 huge pot the rake has impacted you once.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a way, this is true. What if you win 7 pots in an hour, then the rake has impacted you...

It goes both ways. The rake is a constant.

Everyone is averaging over $10 an hour in rake. You will pay it sometime.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The only time that you absolutely know the rake has beaten you is if you leave the table even, having won and lost many pots. If you're up anything over time you've technically beaten the rake. If you're down over time - you don't know if the rake has been a factor.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just wrong. You have it a little backwards. You don't know if you're beating a rake based on the results of 1 session. It's a longhaul stat. Unless you really think the longrun takes only a few sessions to get there.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're playing professionally and you need to put in many hours to grind out a decent income, you are probably forced to play in very tight games

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the games really aren't that tight. If you're playing seriously, not necesarily pro, you should consider rake in regards to the limit you're playing. It does take quite a bite.

b

[lefty rosen]

I have sat your stereotypical weak tight daytime 4/8 game and man the rake is fierce. After a few hours you notice about 2 full racks are off the table and everyone is stuck something... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]