Does rake damage your game? - Page 3 - Micro Stakes Poker Forum

bluem3 · 07-14-2012, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyysf

Thats not a good way to look at it imo schupick. The only way we really have to fight back against these horrible rakes being put on LHE is forum complaints and by not supporting them.

With your attitude they can just raise the rake every 6 months and youll just keep playing and taking it ;/

These insane rakes are not good for fish either. Its literally killing the game

good point. I mean are people going to stop playing

when the rake is like a dollar per hand?

bluem3 · 07-14-2012, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougL

Sure, do whatever you can. OTOH, it also pays to realize how much impact you can or can't have. You also have to consider your own likely mistakes at a 6m table and your own poker leaks. How much mental energy are you spending being hyper-aware of rake, site considerations, and focusing on your own short term results? If you spent that time/energy focusing on your own play, improving your game, etc, would you be better off? Don't ignore prfsr_cain's advice and don't score forum points on him rather than considering what he's saying.
Is just great advice in general and especially to you. Stop focusing on anything else. Just play, find where your play could be better, fix that, and win. You don't have many (any) choices to improve your rake situation. Thus, it is in the things you can't fix column. Thus, move efforts to things you can fix, switch games, or stop playing. I think you can beat 6m LHE, so I suggest you pick choice (A) improving your game and beating it.

Also, Oink's advice/comments are spot on. You can't play as LAG with high rake as you could otherwise. However, are most FR players switching to 6m pushing the boundaries of profit as a sLAG? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing your natural mistake is to play too tight, probably even tighter than rake dictates. Thus, you could use rake as an excuse to compound a natural mistake. IMHO, even if you are a tiny loser before rakeback, you should focus first on winning poker, then think about adjustments to maximize based on rake.. Don't look for excuses to continue with your natural errors in hands.

I mean this in a completely not angry/critical way and I'm smiling when I say it... I almost wonder if you're more interested in being right here than in getting better a poker. Yes, you're right about the rake being too high. Yes, we shouldn't just accept it. Yes, as Oink pointed out (and others before) rake should affect our play. That said, you should do what prfsr_cain says, even though he's technically wrong. I'm totally following you around and beating you up for these posts because I think you're good enough to win and because I'm rooting for you to do better at the tables.

I didn't notice the rake that much till after the BF. Now it became my concern

prfsr_cain · 07-14-2012, 02:12 AM

I want to back track a little on my statement about not taking rake into consideration. I guess I meant that I do consider it, but in a different way. Rather than look at the rake and adjust my play accordingly, saying "oh I need to do this or that," I play my normal style and then adjust accordingly. I have around 8000 hands (I'm winning btw so yes the games are beatable and I consider myself a n00b I lost a lot in two years lol) and will be analyzing my play after a few more thousand hands and adjust as needed. Some hands that were profitable on stars may turn to losers on merge, so I'll drop them. So while I do consider the rake, I do it indirectly and encourage you to do the same. Concentrate on your game and the rake adjustment will take care of itself.

CoreySteel · 07-14-2012, 08:28 AM

No offense, but 8k is just a "lol" sample size.
You could be -5BB/100 loser and still win.

prfsr_cain · 07-14-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreySteel

No offense, but 8k is just a "lol" sample size.
You could be -5BB/100 loser and still win.

Read a little earlier in the thread it was more a reference to earlier posts. Also, read the part about me being a n00b still.

**DougL** · 07-14-2012, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreySteel

No offense, but 8k is just a "lol" sample size.
You could be -5BB/100 loser and still win.

If you (or anyone else) is certain that Merge rake is unbeatable, I suggest going back to one of the last three threads antneye derailed with a discussion of the games being unbeatable due to rake (I'm giving him a hard time here

) and find bellatrix's offer to prop bet that she could beat them. There is nice $ to be made there if the games are certainly not beatable. If the games are beatable, beat them for profit -- at least that's the case for those of us not out of the country living large as SNE.

Sure a 10K same is small. OTOH, prfsr_cain isn't the only person to win in those sample sizes. At the stakes antneye is playing, there are still plenty of bad players, rakeback, etc. Basically if 10K samples are lol and you're saying that he's running 3 or 4 sigmas over expectation to win, go take belltrix's $ in a sucker bet.

A_Schupick · 07-14-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreySteel

No offense, but 8k is just a "lol" sample size.
You could be -5BB/100 loser and still win.

I think that's a little extreme, just an observation from the analysis i have seen.

datsmahname · 07-14-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antneye

....Rake at 1/2 in BB/100.

Stars: 1.66 BB/100

wot? 1.66BB/100 at 1/2???

I pay 3.3BB/100 at Stars 1/2 6max. dub-tee-eff?

plz tell me ur secrets.

antneye · 07-14-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by datsmahname

wot? 1.66BB/100 at 1/2???

I pay 3.3BB/100 at Stars 1/2 6max. dub-tee-eff?

plz tell me ur secrets.

no secret...just bad math. that was FR

CoreySteel · 07-14-2012, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prfsr_cain

Read a little earlier in the thread it was more a reference to earlier posts. Also, read the part about me being a n00b still.

I know, just sayin...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougL

If you (or anyone else) is certain that Merge rake is unbeatable, I suggest going back to one of the last three threads antneye derailed with a discussion of the games being unbeatable due to rake (I'm giving him a hard time here

) and find bellatrix's offer to prop bet that she could beat them. There is nice $ to be made there if the games are certainly not beatable. If the games are beatable, beat them for profit -- at least that's the case for those of us not out of the country living large as SNE.

Sure a 10K same is small. OTOH, prfsr_cain isn't the only person to win in those sample sizes. At the stakes antneye is playing, there are still plenty of bad players, rakeback, etc. Basically if 10K samples are lol and you're saying that he's running 3 or 4 sigmas over expectation to win, go take belltrix's $ in a sucker bet.

I've never said that rake is unbeatable on Merge. Also I've never said that it is. I've never played on Merge, neither have I any intentions too.
So to be completely honest... I don't care about Merge rake at all :P
So... Not sure what my "8k is lol sample size" has anything to do with bella's prop bet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_Schupick

I think that's a little extreme, just an observation from the analysis i have seen.

Extreme thing would be if I said that you could be 100BB up with -5BB/100

datsmahname · 07-14-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoreySteel

No offense, but 8k is just a "lol" sample size.
You could be -5BB/100 loser and still win.

Its always helpful to crunch numbers on these spots because its so easy to do and clears up a lot of the back & forth.

I put in 5k hands for the periods (1 period = 100 hands). This is a 95% confidence interval which says that we can be 95% confident that our winrate lies between 0 and -10 BB/100.

At 8k hands the probability that our winrate is actually positive decreases to less than 2.5%.

You might be a little surprised by this result, but basically as loss or winrates go to extremes then the sample size required to determine whether or not we have a positive (or negative) winrate decreases.

A much smaller win or lossrate would require a much larger sample (in some cases the sample is just plain massive..).

Its of course still possible to be a winning player here. Its just not that likely.

bellatrix · 07-14-2012, 03:19 PM

That distribution implies that a -20BB/100 is just as likely as 0BB/100, which just isn't true.

A_Schupick · 07-14-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellatrix

That distribution implies that a -20BB/100 is just as likely as 0BB/100, which just isn't true.

Is there a site that you like looking to determine tat k9nd of stuff? Just curious on understanding distributions a little more.

CoreySteel · 07-14-2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by datsmahname

Its always helpful to crunch numbers on these spots because its so easy to do and clears up a lot of the back & forth.

I did crunch the numbers myself

But its true that I put 20 BB/100 Std dev.

Besides that... I'm down 300BB at 1/2 in like 2000 hands so... Anything is possible

datsmahname · 07-14-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bellatrix

That distribution implies that a -20BB/100 is just as likely as 0BB/100, which just isn't true.

does it?