low limit rake impact
Lucky Liz
results in low limit live games?�
This has been addressed before in another thread but I thought I would
start a new thread here.
Let�s assume that you are playing $1-$2 NL. In Vegas the house is taking
10% $4 max and in L.A. the house is taking $5 if there is a flop. In Vegas
some casinos have jackpots and some don�t, in L.A. there will always be a
$1 drop for the Jackpot.
Let�s assume that you are being dealt 36 hands per hour and are playing 9
handed. Therefore every player at the table should be winning 4 pots per
hour. Not every pot will reach $40, so let�s assume that $4 comes out of 2
pots, $2 out of 1 pot, and nothing out of the fourth one.
In Vegas you will be getting raked $10 an hour, $4 will be dropped for the
Jackpot, and you probably toked $1 on the three pots that a rake was
taken, which comes out to $17 an hour.
In L.A. $5 came out of three of the pots, $4 for the Jackpot and $3 for
the toke for a total of $22 an hour.
So if a pretty good player is averaging $10 an hour in Vegas, he is really
winning $27 an hour and getting to keep $10 of it. So he is doing all the
work, putting up all the money, and the house gets 63% of his winnings. In
L.A. the same player that is averaging $10 an hour is actually winning $32
an hour and giving the house 69% of his winnings.
To put this in perspective; in the $10-$20 NL the collection is $7 a half
hour per player and there is no Jackpot. You will toke the same $1 on
three of the pots and therefore be paying the same $17 to play as the
$1-$2 players.
As you can see the house expects to make the same amount of money no
matter how high the player is playing. No doubt you are getting to play
against much less sophisticated players in the low limit games; but you
had better make sure that the game you are in is soft. The minute the game
tightens up; you should be looking for a different game or going to a
different a casino.
A tight low limit game with a big chop is a very complicated game to play.
LAG is the way to go in a tight game, but now you are going to be paying
the lion�s share of an outrageous chop. With the rake as high as it is
now-a-days if you want to play low limit, it is essential that you find a
game where you can play TAG and have people stupid enough to give you
action when you decide to put your money in!
The minute you get ahead of the game you should be taking shots at $2-$5
A.S.A.P with a little bit of luck you will book a few winners and be able
to make $2-$5 your main game, where the affect of the rake is a little
less brutal. It is still an awful price to pay to play $2-$5 just not as
awful. The first plateau where the rake isn�t a MAJOR factor in Vegas is
the $5-$10 where each player pays $6 a half hour collection. In L.A. they
are still taking $5 if there is a flop and $1 for the Jackpot in the
$5-$10 games.
Hope this makes sense to you guys, as you can see the house is charging
you an awful lot of money to play poker, and you should take this into
consideration the next time you win a big pot and throw the dealer a
handful of $1 chips.
Toking is an entire other issue; for one, the dealer has no control over
the outcome of a hand; if you give the dealer a hard time because somebody
rivered you in a big pot you are an idiot, it is no different that
shooting the mailman for delivering you the power bill. If you give the
dealer a really big toke because you won an enormous pot you are also an
idiot because you are already paying a gross amount of money for the
privilege of playing poker.
You can say, �the poor dealer doesn�t make any money unless I toke him.�
True, but that is still not the players fault that the dealer took a job
where his employer is only paying him minimum wage! Here is another
example where the house wants to keep all the money and then throw the
burden of paying its employees off on the customers. Some simple math will
alert you to how much the house is actually making per hour, they can
certainly afford to pay their employees out of this money, they just don�t
want to.
Then, should you tip the dealer? From reading the above essay the first
answer that comes to mind is, no way! Be prepared to take a lot of heat
from the other players and the dealers is you decide to be a stiff. If
anything happens in one of your pots the ruling is very likely going to go
against you because the dealer will be adding his slant to what happened
because he hates your guts because you are a stiff. So either way you are
going to end up paying. So the best policy is to tip the dealer $1 and no
more on any decent pot. This way you keep the dealers happy enough with
you, especially if you stick up for them and scold the idiot�s that abuse
them and at the same time holding down your cost of doing business.
If you never toke you will be alerting the other players that you are
taking poker very seriously and that you are a cheapskate. This kind of
image is very likely going to stop some players from giving you action,
which will cost you money.
Keep in mind that if you are playing 1,500 hours annually and toking $1 on
reasonable pots that you are going to be winning right around 4,500 pots
in a year, this amounts to $4,500 a year you are giving away. If you are
playing $1-$2 NL $4,500 is going to have a MAJOR impact on your results
every year.
Ed Hill
www.pokerstrategyforums.com
_____________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
K9way
if you are playin 1-2n/l with the intention of making any tangible money
.you are a bigger fuckin idiot than any example you posted here
no offense jonathan !!
- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
just
kill you.
______________________________________________________________________�
Arlo-Payne
First if you are playing 1-2 NL in a casino then you are not playing for a
living.
Also the other players will not adjust their play at that level because
you dont toke.
Last but not least
iF YOU ARE PLAYING 1-2 NO LIMIT in a casino
GIVE THE DEALER HIS FLIPPING DOLLAR!!!
Question: Is this the same Ed Hill I have seen beg for 3 bucks so he
would have the required buy-in for a 2-4 limit game?
Is this the same Ed Hill that tryed to buyin to a 3-6 limit game with $24
dollars and I stopped him in his tracks as soon as he set down LOL? Boy
was he pissed I loved it.
----�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Arlo-Payne
> ..you are a bigger fuckin idiot than any example you posted here
>
> no offense jonathan !!
>
>
> - Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
> just
> kill you.
I am just guessing but could this be the low life Ed Hill or is there
another hanging around card rooms?
________________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Lucky Liz
a big time winning player in the cash games and has a real good tournament
record. Back in those days he was playing $50-$100 limit holdem. When the
NL started the smallest I have ever seen him play is $5-$10 blind and that
was only waiting for a $10-$20 seat and never with less than thousands of
dollares in front of him.
I remember he started a magazine with Mason Malmouth and Annie Duke
sometime in the 90's and was hired to write for poker strategy forums. So
either you are very confused or a total liar. Either way, I would be
willing to bet that what you are saying NEVER happened.
--------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
Empirical observations support the idea that games with low rakes are
populated by nits and games with high rakes are populated by brain dead
chip spewers.
It's been well known for at least a couple of decades that the best low
limit games are probably the games with high rakes.
----�
snex
wrote:
> Your analysis is very flawed.
>
> Empirical observations support the idea that games with low rakes are
> populated by nits and games with high rakes are populated by brain dead
> chip spewers.
>
> It's been well known for at least a couple of decades that the best low
> limit games are probably the games with high rakes.
and its not the winning players paying the lion's share of the rake.
its the idiots doing the spewing back and forth all the time. i may
win one decent pot an hour, but its a big one. thats $5-$10 per hour,
plus a toke that i pay at $1/$2. the rest of the rake comes from the
idiots limp-calling preflop raises and then folding the flop every
single hand.
Deadmoney Walking
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
what evidence are you talking about? Every market I have seen, now up
to 6, the rake is pretty standard in the market.
Arlo-Payne
First it must be a different Ed Hill sorry about that. But that is why I
asked.
Second NEVER call me names it will get you nowhere.
Oh and yes it happened but clearly a different Ed.
Arlo-Payne
You do also understand you are effected by the rake when they call all in
short right?
------�
Gary Carson
> - Show quoted text -
>
> what evidence are you talking about? Every market I have seen, now up
> to 6, the rake is pretty standard in the market.
Why didn't World Poker Exchange take off?
Rake has always been pretty standard, and it's also pretty much always
been the case that anyone who tried to build a market by cutting the rake
ended up failing. When the standard rake was $3 some rooms tried to
promote a $2 rake but they never got anybody but nits to play and the
games dried up. That's always been the case with a rake.
_____________________________________________________________________�
La Cosa Nostradamus
>
> Why didn't World Poker Exchange take off?
A lot of people complained about the graphics. Since the people who care
about that arent there, the only players left were hard to beat
Music
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL
Dec 21, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BEACDF838531C36C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL
Deadmoney Walking
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
alright. The only exception I can think of now is the Venetian
heavily promoting 8-16 with a lower rake and comps. They've stolen
the Mirage 10-20.
I thought you meant the games in Arizona were better than those in
Connecticut because MI's rake is higher. Definitely not true.
Gary Carson
> On Jan 20 2010 7:23 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Why didn't World Poker Exchange take off?
>
> A lot of people complained about the graphics. Since the people who care
> about that arent there, the only players left were hard to beat
>
That's kind of my point. In a live room with low rakes players will
complain about the lack of root beer floats for the players.
It costs a room a lot of money to attract the kind of players who you want
to play against -- that would be the ones who want the screen (or
waitresses) to look pretty and are willing to pay double for it.
Myself. I'm willing to pay double to get to play against those players
who'll pay double to play in a pretty room.
---�
Gary Carson
> On Jan 20, 5:23�ｿｽpm, "Gary Carson" <garycar...@pokercultureblog.com>
> wrote:
> > On Jan 20 2010 12:35 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 20, 9:27�ｿｽam, "Gary Carson" <garycar...@pokercultureblog.com>
L.A.. they
> > > what evidence are you talking about? �ｿｽEvery market I have seen, now up
> > > to 6, the rake is pretty standard in the market.
> >
> > Why didn't World Poker Exchange take off?
> >
> > Rake has always been pretty standard, and it's also pretty much always
> > been the case that anyone who tried to build a market by cutting the rake
> > ended up failing. �ｿｽWhen the standard rake was $3 some rooms tried to
> > promote a $2 rake but they never got anybody but nits to play and the
> > games dried up. �ｿｽThat's always been the case with a rake.
> >
> - Show quoted text -
>
> alright. The only exception I can think of now is the Venetian
> heavily promoting 8-16 with a lower rake and comps. They've stolen
> the Mirage 10-20.
>
That's a pretty strong exception also. What is their juice on
tournaments? Is it possible they're actually losing money on the room?
> I thought you meant the games in Arizona were better than those in
> Connecticut because MI's rake is higher. Definitely not true.
I don't know what MI means? Michigan? Foxwoods could charge a higher
rake than Mohegan and attract a better class of players with the right
amenities.
Running a successful poker room is about the amenities, not about the
rake. And the comparisons should be made on a geographic basis. And the
best games are always (almost) in the more successful rooms.
____________________________________________________________________�ｿｽ
La Cosa Nostradamus
Thats why people still played at fulltilt and stars. WSEX was nice for a
while. i agree that its worth the extra to play against the easy players
Music
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL
______________________________________________________________________�
Deadmoney Walking
>
> That's a pretty strong exception also. What is their juice on
> tournaments? Is it possible they're actually losing money on the room?
>
Their daily tournament is 130+20.
It's highly possible they are since they give so much, but they
definitely are generating a lot traffic. How much of it is caused by
the rake is questionable, but I suspect it was curcial for getting the
remaining few limit hold'em players to come over.
The players at 4 love it, which suggests the games may be nitty
"The Venetian has taken many strong steps in catering to and rewarding
its poker players. Unheard of amenities are given to poker players on
a daily basis including top shelf beverages and Fiji bottled water,
hourly comps, food buffet for tournament players, coffee and water bar
in room, automatic shufflers in ALL tables including temporary
tournament tables, 24 hour dedicated porter service, and a host of
other lesser amenities. Venetian is the largest poker room in the TCA
at 39 cash game tables, and is one of the two busiest overall poker
rooms in the area. There is no question that on the overall scale,
Venetian is the top room."
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick-mortar/lvms-thoughts-las-vegas-poker-landscape-680796/
- Las Vegas Michael on 4. with more gush at http://www.allvegaspoker.com/room_41.html
> > I thought you meant the games in Arizona were better than those in
> > Connecticut because MI's rake is higher. Definitely not true.
>
> I don't know what MI means? Michigan? Foxwoods could charge a higher
> rake than Mohegan and attract a better class of players with the right
> amenities.
>
> Running a successful poker room is about the amenities, not about the
> rake. And the comparisons should be made on a geographic basis. And the
> best games are always (almost) in the more successful rooms.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. Foxwoods is a strange animal. 2003-2008 they had a monopoly
from New York to Maine. And yet the rake was low and the comps very
generous.
Detroit had 3 competing rooms in the area with the same higher rake,
no free anything, and trash everywhere.
rake was 4$ at Woods, now 4+1.
Detroit rake (was 12/hr + 1 per pot) is now a normal 5+1
Of course, we northeasterners did nothing but find other things to
complain about. I tried to tell everyone, but they just complain
about the time they got crushed ice instead of cubes.
K9way
This one of the most flawed rebuttals to the 'high rake " thingy I have
ever seen . This argument has never worked . You conveniently forget that
some of the time those preflop limpers will make a hand that beats you for
the entire pot .
BOTTOM LINE: In a 3-6 limit game , you are losing just over ONE FULL BET
, in a pot that reaches max rate .(assuming JP and toke )
yes ..looser games have more dead money in the pot but they are still
fucking you silly in low-limit HE or low blind N/L.
the accepted win rate for the last 30 years for LHE has been a big bet
and 1/2 per hour .. you consistently lose almost that much with the rakes
as they are now .
if you give low limit HE 100 hours .. you are fucked !!
- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
just
kill you.
____________________________________________________________________�
Gary Carson
>
> the accepted win rate for the last 30 years for LHE has been a big bet
> and 1/2 per hour ..
LOL.
That's based on a convenience sample survey Mason did of his friends, all
of whom habitually played in bad games.
------�
Gary Carson
> On Jan 20 2010 11:40 AM, snex wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 10:27�am, "Gary Carson" <garycar...@pokercultureblog.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Your analysis is very flawed.
> > >
> > > Empirical observations support the idea that games with low rakes are
> > > populated by nits and games with high rakes are populated by brain dead
> > > chip spewers.
> > >
> > > It's been well known for at least a couple of decades that the best low
> > > limit games are probably the games with high rakes.
> >
> > and its not the winning players paying the lion's share of the rake.
> > its the idiots doing the spewing back and forth all the time. i may
> > win one decent pot an hour, but its a big one. thats $5-$10 per hour,
> > plus a toke that i pay at $1/$2. the rest of the rake comes from the
> > idiots limp-calling preflop raises and then folding the flop every
> > single hand.
>
> This one of the most flawed rebuttals to the 'high rake " thingy I have
> ever seen . This argument has never worked . You conveniently forget that
> some of the time those preflop limpers will make a hand that beats you for
> the entire pot .
>
Gee. I never thought of that.
> BOTTOM LINE: In a 3-6 limit game , you are losing just over ONE FULL BET
> , in a pot that reaches max rate .(assuming JP and toke )
>
> yes ..looser games have more dead money in the pot but they are still
> fucking you silly in low-limit HE or low blind N/L.
>
> the accepted win rate for the last 30 years for LHE has been a big bet
> and 1/2 per hour .. you consistently lose almost that much with the rakes
> as they are now .
>
> if you give low limit HE 100 hours .. you are fucked !!
>
>
> - Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
> just
> kill you.
--------�
K9way
> On Jan 21 2010 10:25 AM, K9way wrote:
>
> >
> > the accepted win rate for the last 30 years for LHE has been a big bet
> > and 1/2 per hour ..
>
> LOL.
>
> That's based on a convenience sample survey Mason did of his friends, all
> of whom habitually played in bad games.
WRONG .. Sklansky came up with this before mason hand any name for himself
. maybe 78-79-80
- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
just
kill you.
-----�
K9way
> Why didn't World Poker Exchange take off?
>
> Rake has always been pretty standard, and it's also pretty much always
> been the case that anyone who tried to build a market by cutting the rake
> ended up failing. When the standard rake was $3 some rooms tried to
> promote a $2 rake but they never got anybody but nits to play and the
> games dried up. That's always been the case with a rake.
HEY YOU FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT !! i worked in vegas when the rake wars
were going on . I remember the fight when the Palace Station went to 10% 2
max instead of 5%. Stardust almost lost its 10-20 when it was at its
"hayday" , as Callahan tried to raise the rake in the "high side ".Of
course he was getting a PC .. whooda thunk it ?
- Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll
just
kill you.
_____________________________________________________________________�
YYZ
The unseen and imo more damaging effect of the rake is not the money
taken out of the pots that you win, but the money taken from the
stacks of opponents you're facing off against. Consider a scenerio
where you have an opponent outstacked and win an all-in pot. If you're
opponent is playing loose and winning many pots than he could have
another $25-100 if not for the rake. If you have him outstacked and
proceed to stack him off on a hand, you're not winning that $25-100
because it's been raked. This is a much greater effect than the
supposed $/hr paid in rake for the pots you've won. Also consider
what the rake does to marginal players with limited bankrolls. A break-
even player could be a gold mine for an expert to play against; but
the rake will bust this player out of the game over time. The rake
breaks the weaker players much faster than if there were no rake, so
the really bad effect of the rake is that it eliminates your weakest
opponents much quicker over time. Of coure this process may take weeks
or months, but eventually the weak and break-even players will succumb
to the rake.
If you're playing juicy $1/2 NL games you shouldn't be playing very
many hands at all as the correct way to play these games is to play
super tight and just get paid off when you hit; it's really that
simple- provided you're in a juicy game. Hence you wont be winning 4
pots per hour in juicy games; if you start with $100 and double up 3
times in 8 hours you've just won $700 . Of coure the rake does have an
effect on your stack based on the pots you play, and this provides a
good argument for buying into a loose $1/2 NL games with $100 and then
playing very tight. When you properly play an ~50 BB stack in a juicy
game you wont be playing many hands at all, and thus paying less rake
out of your stack. Consider that when you play this way your first
playable hand is more likely to be a "reverse implied odds" situation
(ie your big pair or set vs. a draw) than anything else and having ~
$80 to bet into an ~$50 pot makes for an easy decision. When you stack
off with $100 you're most likely to be against a bigger stack, thus
you're not penalized for the rake they've paid. And you don't have to
suffer the negative effect of having a relativly small stack even
after buying in for the max, as a juicy game is likely to feature
several stacks larger or even much larger than the max buy in. When
you do manage to double (or even triple) up, you still have only $100
invested into the game, making a big loss to a suckout later on in the
game (with your newly aquired big stack) less costly.
Lucky Liz
likes him except Sklansky. Or at least david must not hate him, seeing
thsat he does biz with him..
On Jan 21 2010 8:35 AM, Gary Carson wrote:
> On Jan 21 2010 10:25 AM, K9way wrote:
>
> >
> > the accepted win rate for the last 30 years for LHE has been a big bet
> > and 1/2 per hour ..
>
> LOL.
>
> That's based on a convenience sample survey Mason did of his friends, all
> of whom habitually played in bad games.
_____________________________________________________________________�