Rake Comparison in Montreal's Two Major Casinos

I looked at the impact of an increase in the cap from $8 to $12 at a casino in Australia for a 2/5 NLH game which was raked at 10%. I found that players were paying an extra $7.10 per hour (1.42bb) with the cap increase. I counted the rake on four tables for an hour each, over the course of a week, so only minor sample. Average hands per hour was 33.25 for a 8-handed game.

I'm not sure 50% of pots would exceed the rake cap in your sample. In my sample 42% of pots exceeded the $12 cap. Anyway the difference in the cap between $3 and $6 in your example, depending on stake, is significant. Much depends, also, on whether you measure the impact in $ or bb (in either case, though, the impact at lower stakes is greatest).

Interesting, thanks for the feedback - our results weren't that far apart from each other.

1/2 and 1/3 have the same rake at pg? I thought 1/2 was capped at 10$

5/10 is also 14$ not 16$

According to Poker Atlas yes:

Im there and your right, damn this whole time i thought it was 10$, thats insane that the 1/3 isnt more popular then, 1/2 with that rake is close to unbeatable

Yeah it's a total joke, one of the worst places in Canada for rake - this is why I'm intending to grind at Casino de Montreal instead (I'm moving to Montreal next year).

Are you actually there right now? Can you confirm that the rake listed on Poker Atlas is correct? And what is the rake cap at $5/$10?

Cheers

5-10 is 14$ cap same rake as 2/5

Hey, but the good news is all poker earnings are tax free up here, so that slightly below minimum wage you'll be making goes *right into your bank account*!

GawesumawesumawesumG

Okay cool thanks - strange that their Poker Atlas says differently.

I assume you're referring to the $1/$2 and $1/$3 hourly rates.

Nobody said they were winning at 20bbs/100 hands - that is simply the number I chose for the example. That said, 20bbs/100 hands is absolutely crushing the game, and I'd estimate less than 5% of players win at that rate or higher. The expected revenue I posted for 30 hours/week at Playground was:

$1/$2: $360 ($12/hour)
$1/$3: $540 ($18/hour)
$2/$5: $900 ($30/hour)
$5/$10: $1800 ($60/hour)

If one were to play at Casino de Montreal instead, the expected revenue would be:

$1/$2: $487.5 ($16.25/hour)
$1/$3: $625 ($20.84/hour)
$2/$5: $1070 ($35.66/hour)
$5/$10: $2055 ($68.5/hour)

If you want to convert this into the hourly rate one would have to be making to earn this amount in a "real job" then it's necessary to account for ~20% income tax, which gives the following:

$16.25/hour -> $20.32/hour
$20.84/hour -> $26.05/hour
$35.66/hour -> $44.58/hour
$68.5/hour -> $85.62/hour

So even at the lowest stake one would be earning far more than minimum wage, and this again shows the importance of choosing the right games with regard to rake.

Yes, and most expected 1/2 and 1/3 winrates would be just barely beating most minimum wages up here (although tax free... but also with zero benefits).

ETA: Not exactly sure if we're on the same page or what, but your expected winrate of $16.25/hr at 1/2 at Casino de Montreal is a whole 15 cents an hour more than Quebec's minimum wage. Yes, tax free, but easily lagging far behind when you factor in zero benefits, imo.

GcluelesshardwaytomakeaneasylivingnoobG

I think the big gotcha is that while online is tracked at bb/100, live is almost always tracked at bb/hr ... and 20bb/hr is basically impossible over the long term in public casino games.

Live is estimated at like 30-40 hands an hour, so 20bb/100 is like 5-7bb/hr ... which is maybe reasonable for a good reg. but I'd still lean that is less than top 5% (esp. as the rake increases).

The other problem is that your hourly at 11pm on a Fri/Sat is going to be better than your hourly at 2pm on a Tuesday ... most normal jobs don't have that problem. Also it's a _lot_ easier to do 70-94 hours a week in a job than it is to do that playing poker (although, to be fair it's going to be much more difficult to find a regular job that allows you to be paid hourly and work 70+ hours).

The minimum wage of $16.10 in quebec is still taxed at around 20%, so its not comparable to earning $16.25/hour playing poker. To take home $16.25 an hour in a real job you would need a wage of around $20.30 an hour - which is obviously far above minimum wage.

Benefits are hardly relevant - we're talking about earned income. And there are also numerous benefits to not having to work a soul-destroying job in which you are constantly exhausted, have to deal with a$$hat colleagues, workplace conflict, stress, nightmate bosses etc etc. If you follow any pro vlogs of people who used to work for a living, they invariably emphasise how much they love being free to do what they want, when they want - and I think most people who have ever worked for a living understand that very well.

Yes I agree that good regs are making 5-7bbs/hour or thereabouts, and it's definitely a very small fraction of the live low stakes pool who can achieve that.

In my opinion it really doesn't matter if your hourly varies at certain times of the week. When you calculate winrates for a week/month, you only look at hours played and winnings/losses - so the final figure is an average of all the hours played throughout the time period, and of course that will include busier and quieter times in the casino. Personally I have never found it hard to put in a lot of hours at casinos.

Another thing worth noting is that once you get to 60+ hours worked in a week the tax gets absurdly bad - of course, poker doesn't have this problem.

Thanks OP for putting that together.

I guess I'm really clueless because I'm not deep into that stuff like rake and winrates, it seems weird to me because we're trying to find some consistency and expected outcomes when for each session things happen that are random, you can have a good night or always have the 2nd-best hand. Also, you only need to worry about rake if you win the pot lol. Just win bigger pots and you won't have to worry about the impact of rake (yes, another silly comment but I'm just talking about things that are not easy to control).

What the OP is doing in this thread should be applauded. What might appear like trivial differences to many --- that is, taking an extra $1 or $2 or $3 or $4 from a pot, when often these pots contain hundreds if not thousands of dollars --- really do matter when you look at winrates over a decent sample of 1000 hours or more. Think about all those battles unions fight over increasing pay by like $1.12 and so on. Poker being such an individualistic pursuit makes this message tough to communicate in my experience. Aside from a little moaning and complaining, there's often no concerted effort to ensure rake is kept at a level where it's possible to beat a low-stakes game, for above minimum wage, if you play it better than most. To me, collecting and analysing data on rake in relation to win-rates at different stakes in different rooms is the best way of getting the conversation started (although it's generally not a good idea to talk about it at the poker table, as it tends to kill the vibe, bore people etc.).

You're welcome, I hope it was of some use to you. It certainly illustrated to me how these little differences can make a massive difference in a large sample - for example, if you extrapolated it onto revenue for a whole year then it's a difference of over $6,000 at $1/$2 - nothing to be sneezed at.

Sure, everyone has good nights and bad nights, and nobody can escape downswings. The bottom line is that, if you're a winning player despite the bad nights, then all that matters is putting in as much volume as possible.

There's not really any feasible way to try and win more big pots without bending the rules of theory a little more than is reasonable in my opinion - but what we can control is choosing games with less rake and of course that is something we should always aim to do.

Thanks, I appreciate it and agree with the points you made.

Considering rake at my local US poker room for 1/3 is now $12-14, these rates still seem like a steal

Wow that sucks, which casino is that?

OMG, those rakes are criminal. Unbeatable games for everyone. I used to play 10-20 limit in Vegas in the 1980s, rake was 5%, $2 max. I made $23/hr. Now rakes in Vegas are around 10%, $5/$6 max. Assuming I win 4 hands an hour, an extra $3 per hand x 4=$12 and my win rate would be $11/hr. With 10% rake, $11 max, my win rate is now a loss 4x9=-36 +23 = -$13/hr. (even worse with jackpot rake but I generously assume that will eventually break even, but granted, not all hands are max rake, but you get the idea). arrrgh Poker rakes have gotten so bad in the last decade. Why can't we just have 10% $3 max rake so people have a chance to win again!?

Because, the casino's focus is to maximize their own profits, not to enable more people to have a chance to win. Unfortunately, almost nobody gives the rake a second thought when deciding whether, or even where to play, so why would any business lower their price if they are not going to gain any more volume if they do?

What's rake like for playground 10/25 A/S during events (ie. upcoming WSOPC series)? Is it really $75 cap?

The NL 10/25/50 game I think is 5% to $125 and the 10/10/25 PLO is 5% to $75. Games are great thought. And unlimited food and top shelf drinks from any of the restaurants, filets, wagyu, sushi, lobster tails etc etc. Not saying the rake is worth it, but it is what it is.