Who pays the rake?
Hi all,
An argument just broke out in my local poker game about who pays the rake in poker. One side is arguing that only the winner of a hand pays rake, other side is arguing that many people contribute money to the pot, therefore many people pay rake - i.e. the losers of a hand, as well as the winner.
Which is it?
T
Let me try this one last time.
If the rake is taken from the pot, post-flop, then the winner of each pot pays the rake for that pot.
Everyone pays SOME rake, except for the unlikely possibility that some player is able to win every hand pre-flop, and thus pay no rake.
But winning a pot, even winning multiple pots, doesn't make someone a winning player. It's possible to win lots of pots and still lose money. Someone can win a lot of small pots, and pay a bunch of rake, and then lose their entire sta
Rake is paid by the winner of the pot regardless of whether they're a winning player or a losing player. In a large sample, all winning players pay very close to the amount of the rake structure of the game. Rake does have an impact in strategy, but it concerns mostly the big blind defending range and to a lesser degree the number of hands we can call when we raise and get 3bet. In both cases, the EV of the call is significantly impacted by the size of the rake, because if the rake is higher then more money is taken out of the pot (lowering the EV of the call).
Doug Polk has some good analysis of this in his article on rake here:
https://upswingpoker.com/rake-poker-stra...
For example, let's say there is a $5 flat drop as the rake structure:
Hero is in the BB facing a C/O raise to $8.
Hero would need to call $6 to play for a pot of $12 (CO’s $8 raise + the dead blinds $3 + Hero’s $6 call – $5 rake):
Pot Odds = $6 / $12 = 0.5 = 50% raw equity needed
Now compare the situation if there was no rake being paid:
Pot odds = $6 / $8 (CO’s bet) + $9 (our call + the dead blinds)
Pot odds = $6 / $17 = 0.35 = 35% raw equity needed
When there's no rake, the BB only needs 35% raw hand vs range equity, instead of 50% which, needless to say, is a massive difference and means that the BB can defend a much wider range:
Yes, it's good to win pots preflop and avoid rake, but not so good that we suddenly start 3betting/4betting more hands in order to take advantage of that fact. In other words, the EV gained in doing so is less than the EV lost in 3betting hands that should not be 3betting. Similarly, there is no EV to be gained in trying to win larger pots than our hand strength warrants simply because we will pay less proportionate rake. Our preflop hand selection is purely dictated by whether or not they are plus EV hands to play, not by whether or not they can win large pots and pay less proportionate rake as a result.
Increasing value bet sizes by 5% and/or decreasing bluff sizes by 5% is unfortunately a very transparent and unsound strategy adjustment that gives away information to observant opponents. You're also making the assumption that this is a good adjustment because it means that bluffs lose less money when they get called, but the counter-argument is that larger bluff sizes have more fold equity and therefore using smaller sizes is lower EV because it's more likely to get called.
Nobody can get down to 1% "proportionate rake on winnings" in a large sample. For example, at 100k hands, all winning players will have played very close to the house rake percentage as the percentage rake on their winnings. Losing players in a similar sample size will have paid the same percentage of rake as the winners in the pots they won (despite having an overall loss). Being a winning/losing player does not affect the rake paid in that regard. In the long run (for example, over an entire career) all winning players will pay very close to the same amount of rake (as a percentage of winnings) assuming they are playing in games that have identical rake structures.
Here come the Solver charts. May God have mercy on all of our souls.
Weak ad hominem response.
As indicated, if you don't want to explore in depth discussion of ranges and the math involved in poker hands, you can refrain from commenting - and in fact I would advise that you do so, unless you have something meaningful to add to the discussion.
Weak ad hominem response.
As indicated, if you don't want to explore in depth discussion of ranges and the math involved in poker hands, you can refrain from commenting - and in fact I would advise that you do so, unless you have something meaningful to add to the discussion.
Now that I know, I'll be more cognizant about just letting you do your thing.
😃😃😃
I bet making assumptions like this with incomplete information makes you a "really great" low stakes crusher!
Listen dude. Some people didn't get enough attention from their parents when they were growing up, or are otherwise needy/single/insecure, so they post provocative, baity comments on threads where people are trying to have intelligent discussions, in order to get the attention that they lack in their life/missed out on in their childhood. It's pretty tragic and pathetic, and I don't want to see it in the threads I start on this forum. So please refrain from it in the future, or I'll need to contact the site and have a word with them about your behaviour. I genuinely hope that you find what you need in life to make you feel better about yourself.
Have a nice day 😀
