Why are some people not able to use multi quote after more than 10 years on the forums? Just disrespectful and annoying.

Well if you multiquote then you have only 9733 posts instead of 9735 in your pocket.

Yes, it matters a lot.
If you played a $365 event with 9.1% rake (like $331.8+ $32.2) and 6737 players, and won, the 1st place payout would be $269,458. If rake was 17.81% (like 300+65) 1st would pay $243,644. So that 8.7% increase in rake just cost you $25,814. Rake matters.

But as you say, if you do not cash, then yes, rake still matters as double joker pointed out. You would have $15 extra to spend if rake was $15 less.

I agree that the WSOPC rake is somewhat high. However, those people earnestly demanding a 10% rake are being completely unrealistic.

It is true that tournaments at the ~$300 buy-in level often had 10% rake like 10-15 years ago. It was also true that these tournaments:

1.) Were one day tournaments, frequently with very fast structures
2.) Didn't include dealer tips in their rake
3.) Often included essentially mandatory dealer add-ons at the table
4.) Paid nothing in comps
5.) Were staffed by house dealers making most of their wages off cash games, as opposed to a traveling contingent of dealers that have to pay for their own temporary housing and travel expenses
6.) Didn't include a leaderboard with a big freeroll tournament at the end
7.) Were played at a time when 10% of $300 was worth more

ring events don't take the 3% admin fee

Exactly Nick

I have seen this in a couple of your posts and spreadsheets. Why do you calculate the rake as 65/365 and not 65/300? I think 65/300 is the correct (accepted?) percentage calculation.

Where I live, sales tax is 6%, item is $10, total is $10.60, if store lists price as "$10.60 tax included" tax is not 5.6%, same as listing tournaments as "365 rake included".

Tournaments simply break it down as 300+65, instead of $300 + X%(rake/fee/tips) so players don't have to do math.

think about it this way. if instead of a rake(entry fee) on tournaments would you enter if they instead just took the whole prize pool on a roll of a die if it came up six? and paid the full amount the other 5 times.

that is basically the same thing as paying close to 20% entry fee. whether you can beat that or not is up to your play and how bad the field plays.

I have to admit the high rake kept me from playing in the WSOP in Cherokee NC. But I figured I was the only one (looking at their attendance). I'll just play my high rake cash games, thank you.

What is worse is that when you win, they pay you out in a side room and try leaning on you for a big tip.

Rake and sales tax are calculated differently. Rake is how much is taken out of the total buyin and cannot exceed 100%. If buyin was $300+$300 fee, then under the sales tax method, rake would be 100%, yet $300 is still going to the prize pool. Thus rake is 300fee/(300+300) = 50%.

lol at the irony of this.

Just check out how many people buy lottery tickets. Same mentality.

That's a pretty arbitrary statement that comes close to "your opinion". Any reason why someone would not express rake as a percentage of the money that goes into the prize pool?

Rake does not go into the prize pool, it comes out of it. Whereas sales taxes does not come out of the cost of an item, it is added to the cost. So rake is expressed as the % taken out of the total cost to buyin, and sales tax is expressed as the percentage added on to the price of the good being sold.

Think of a cash game with 10% rake. If the pot is $40, they take a $4 rake. That is 10% of $40. The ending pot is now $36. You would not say "well the real rake is 4/36 or 11.11%. Just like a tournament. The total buyin is 300+65=365. The rake portion is 65. So the rake is 65/365 not 65/300. 65/365 is calculated the same as 4/40 = 10% above.

also, look at 100% rake. if buyin was 365 and rake was 365, under your method the rake would be 365/0 = infinity as 0 is going to the pool. Under the correct method it would be 365/365 = 100% .

Or you pay rake to play for a certain prize pool, in which case it is like a tax that you pay for on top. What you're saying is that rake should be calculated in a certain way by definition which I don't think is true.

I have no opinion on this and don't think it's really important anyway, so just out of curiosity I'd like to know where this is defined that way?

How do you know rake comes out of the prize pool? Why can't you say it's a tournament that has $300 going to the prize pool with a 'tournament tax' aka rake of $65 getting added to that?

This is not up for debate. 300+65 is 65/365=17.81% rake. PERIOD! If you think it should be 65/300. you are wrong. if you think 2+2=5, then you are wrong.

Below is from the pokerstars website: note rake is based on "total buy-in" ie 365, not 300.

Tournament Rake is 6-10%
Tournament buy-ins are divided into two separate pieces: one large piece for the prize pool, and a smaller piece to cover PokerStars’ hosting costs. This latter piece represents the “rake” of the tournament, and it is typically is between 6-10% of the total buy-in.

I don't care which way you do the math, but acting like pokerstars is some authority is absurd.

They deliberately started referring to tournament fees in this manner after years of the fee being separate. Why do you believe that is?

Traditionally 10% meant 10+1. Obviously pokerstars wants 9+1 to be 10% instead.

Way to kill the thread, guys.

Believe me folks, only I can tell you how rake is calculated. No other way around it folks, only I can fix it. Rake is calculated how I and PokerStars tell you how it is calculated. PERIOD. Those other people have been lying to you for years. SAD!

PokerStars has a very obvious reason why they want to calculate the percentage based on the total buy-in amount.

Isn't this an age-old question? If you google this, you find numerous threads on 2+2 people arguing the same thing.

It is 65/300 there really is nothing to argue about.

Sad that America has come to embrace alternative facts as being true. What part of "$65/$365 is correct, Period!" do you not understand. I feel sad for the future of our country.

how would you calculate the % of useless posts in this thread.

would you divide the number of useless posts by all posts or only divide by non-useless posts.

actually now that I think about it I dont care. the number of useless posts remains the same no matter which denominator you use.