Vem slår egentligen raken i Micro Fixed?

[jaha]

från http://www.headsupclub.com/aprock/2006/05/the-cost-of-the-rake-2/

 

 

The cost of the rake

 

When I first started playing poker, I worried a lot about the rake. The available games were expensive, with 10% up to $5 being a common riverboat rake. One of the first things I did when I had enough data was to do a very remedial rake analysis. I took logged hands from play on IRC, and estimated the cost of the rake based on what would have been taken if there had been a rake. I varied the percentage and the cap. [i just love the old school SGI/Motif window decorations.]

 

The basic results of that chart indicate that a 5% rake is much worse than a 10% rake. As a result, I made it a point to never play in games that had a 10% rake, no matter how low the cap was. And that was that. Only recently, with the proliferation of rake-back, and other bonuses for online poker have I come back to consider the rake. I used my new simulator to construct a table which looked kind of like something you might find online. I made the players bit loose, and a bit passive, but otherwise good. Of course, the sharks had to be better than the fish to get a clear picture of win rates.

 

I ran the same exact simulation for 30,000 hands, and varied only the limits at which the players played. The first simulation had no rake, and all the others had a rake of 5% to a max of $3. The rake was taken out in $1 increments at every $20. So a pot which was in the range [$40,$60) would have a $2 rake applied to it. A pot which was $60 or larger would have $3 taken for rake. The results were dramatic.

 

By the end of 30K hands, the expert player was winning at a rate of 4.77 bb/100 in the unraked game. When the expert was playing in a raked 2/4 game, his earn rate dropped down to 1.05 bb/100. The rake is taking over three-quarters of his winnings. In fact, players don’t begin to escape the gravitational pull of the rake until 5/10.

 

This goes a long way towards explaining why higher limit games are sometimes easier to beat than lower limit games. Consider how much you have to beat the players for to make the same earn rate. At 2/4, you need to beat the players for about 4.72 bb/100 to take home 1 bb/100. At 15/30, you only need to beat the plays for 2.25 bb/100 to take home 1 bb/100 after the rake. Your edge over the field can be cut in half, and you’ll still acrue big bets at the same rate.

[jaha]

9 Responses to “The cost of the rake”

 

1. Bob Says:

May 4th, 2006 at 4:44 pm

 

So what happens if you add in dealer tokes for any pot over $15 and $1 for a jackpot drop at say $40?

2. Mark Says:

May 6th, 2006 at 7:21 am

 

Many of us pay thousands of dollars in rake each year online, and when a site like worldpokerexchange.com comes along with their no rake policy, you think it would take off like a rocket, as the idea to some of no rake is fantastic. Sadly as most casual players hate change, it might go the way of zerorake.com down the pan. Lets hope it doesnt, its the way forward. I know in time online rake will have to reduce, as charging 5% in cash games and 10% in tournaments cannot be justified for a computer run game, but until it can be challenged, rake sucks !!

3. Alan Says:

May 8th, 2006 at 8:54 pm

 

If it wouldn’t be difficult to run, I’m curious how does this changes with 6-max tables?

4. Andrew Says:

May 8th, 2006 at 11:40 pm

 

Bob and Alan

 

It’s important not to read too much into the actual results. The main point is that the rake eats you up, and being aware of it, and how much it’s costing you is also important. I did check out WPX, and found nothing at or above my preferred limit, 30/60. Until they cultivate high limit games, I’ll be stuck paying the rake myself.

5. David Says:

May 11th, 2006 at 11:50 am

 

It amazes me that anyone ever made money working their way up through the casinos. Seems like you would have be constantly taking shots at bigger games, hoping to get lucky and make a bankroll breakthrough, than grinding away at the lower limits.

6. John Says:

May 16th, 2006 at 1:12 pm

 

Andrew,

 

I am fairly new to online poker. I have been playing seriously now for about a year. I have been using a very crude excel spreadsheet to track my BR status and was wondering if you had something a little more detailed that tracks each game (NL, Limit, SnG, and Tourney) and also keeps up with the current status of my BR across all the various sites.

 

Any help you can give with this would be greatly appreciated,

 

John

7. lseven Says:

June 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pm

 

I assume you mean that a 10% rake is much worse than a 5% rake.

8. Grinder Says:

July 12th, 2006 at 11:24 am

 

Very thought provoking - I have run million hand SIMS on different rake but always using $2/4.

 

One thing is that a 1.5BB/100 player in 2/4 WITH rake at Party goes down to a -0.9BB/100 player without rake at WPEX because of the table conditions.

 

BUT - gains back almost all of it in rakeback.

 

I have never gone UP in limits! hmmmmmmm! thanks

Grinder

9. Grinder Says:

July 17th, 2006 at 2:12 pm

 

OK - I have some issues with this post.

 

In 2/4 the average rake is about 2BB/100 hands - thus, by moving up in limits the BEST you can do is to add 2BB/100 to your win rate.

 

You can add 3BB when you are only paying 2BB.

 

Plsu with my million hand simulations you are only eating up about .75BB/100 of that rake. At 20/40 your down to earing 1.5BB/100 so the same exact hands you go from 2BB/100 to 3.5BB/100.

 

BUT - I luv ya anyway dude!

[jaha]

wow, man känner sig hyfsat dum.

 

 

liksom spelbolagen borde ju tjäna på många bäckar små men det tjänar ju massor av pengar på varje enskild person, vinnande eller ej.

 

äckligt alltså.

 

lägger nog ner pokern ehlt känns det som fast jag plussar. tar för mycket tid från vettigare saker ändå.

[snerki]

Nyckeln till att slå raken på låga nivåer: bonusar.

[jaha]

Nyckeln till att slå raken på låga nivåer: bonusar.

 

så de kan fortsätta hålla sin äkcligt höga rake?

 

bojkotta nätpoker säger jag.

 

1% rake hade väl varit humant ungefär. fats fortfarande mycket.

[Opteron]

vad hindrar dig att spela på worldpx.com om du inte gillar rake?

[psykologen]

Nyckeln till att slå raken på låga nivåer: bonusar.

 

så de kan fortsätta hålla sin äkcligt höga rake?

 

bojkotta nätpoker säger jag.

 

1% rake hade väl varit humant ungefär. fats fortfarande mycket.

 

Vad baserar du det på?

 

Under de premiserna skulle bolagen typ gå back på pokern.

[heltok]

Nyckeln till att slå raken på låga nivåer: bonusar.

 

så de kan fortsätta hålla sin äkcligt höga rake?

 

bojkotta nätpoker säger jag.

 

1% rake hade väl varit humant ungefär. fats fortfarande mycket.

 

Vad baserar du det på?

 

Under de premiserna skulle bolagen typ gå back på pokern.

 

eller inte...

[BOGiS]

vad hindrar dig att spela på worldpx.com om du inte gillar rake?

Att siten är icke-skattefri – skatta 30% per pot är inte direkt något att föredra

[dr noob]

vad hindrar dig att spela på worldpx.com om du inte gillar rake?

Att siten är icke-skattefri – skatta 30% per pot är inte direkt något att föredra

Så du går hellre back än pyntar skatten?

[BOGiS]

vad hindrar dig att spela på worldpx.com om du inte gillar rake?

Att siten är icke-skattefri – skatta 30% per pot är inte direkt något att föredra

Så du går hellre back än pyntar skatten?

Jag får ta och läsa om texten, sitter och lirar – missade säkert en del av texten. Att skatta per pot (utan avdrag) är dock mycket kostsamt – rimligen mycket mer än raken

[jaha]

vad hindrar dig att spela på worldpx.com om du inte gillar rake?

Att siten är icke-skattefri – skatta 30% per pot är inte direkt något att föredra

Så du går hellre back än pyntar skatten?

Jag får ta och läsa om texten, sitter och lirar – missade säkert en del av texten. Att skatta per pot (utan avdrag) är dock mycket kostsamt – rimligen mycket mer än raken

 

jo men skatteverkat har ju insett att det inte går.

 

du skattar efter, inte per pott i realiteten.