Why is rake worse for short-stackers?
I've heard this a few times now but without further explanation. I've seen a couple people in my room over the years short-stack as a winning strat. One guy was on an absolute print at a super soft casino in the next city over but came to our game (notoriously tougher) and wasn't doing nearly as well.
He'd buy in for 120-150 at 1/3 and jam premiums as weak as AJs AQo and TT. So his range was roughly ~6% of hands. Maybe would limp along sometimes IP. People told me later 'the rake must eat him alive'. Our rake is 10% to a max of 7$ at all stakes.
Why is that?
6 Replies
Because the rake as a percent of pot is less for larger pots
Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
But we still end up in very large pots with these short stacks, they can end up in 800$ pots 4-ways all-in. I guess, yea its true, it would cut in if the 500$ stack was also getting into 4-way all-ins.
The rake always comes out of the main pot first. So when you short stack you are always going less over the cap.
People who short stack and win are winning in spite of this, not showing that it isn’t relevant.
But we still end up in very large pots with these short stacks, they can end up in 800$ pots 4-ways all-in. I guess, yea its true, it would cut in if the 500$ stack was also getting into 4-way all-ins.
Short-stackers who effectively use their 50BB stacks to shove and steal pots likely make money in spite of the rake, although this strategy alone will often get them up to 100BB+, taking them out of shortstackland.
ok well I tried short-stacking today. Bought in for 200 at 1/3. After a few minutes had 216$ and was dealt J♦ J♠ in HJ.
BTN straddles, loose passive station with a spazz button opens SB for 16, folds to LJ loose passive who calls 16, Hero jams 216 in HJ with JJ, SB tanks a bit and calls, LJ folds.
Runout T-T-3-K-Q and he has AQo.
Ugh. Why jam? Just make a normal 3bet. I might jam $100 or less, but never $200.
