Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Adding another log to the topic of rake Adding another log to the topic of rake

03-18-2014 , 04:30 PM
So I've been on and off the forum for a while now, and have come across multiple threads discussing how bad the rake is and can I beat the rake at this level, etc, etc.

For most people, the rake they pay is going to be higher than the amount they make, that's just the cost of doing business. Some places its higher, some places its lower, in the end, we all must pay it. I feel like people see the rake number as a negative or loss in HM or PT when its really just a number. 20K in rake and 5K in earnings is still a pretty good return on investment. You didn't lose 15K in that scenario. You also didn't make 25K and lose 20K of it. You invested 20K, rolled it up to 25K, removed the initial 20K investment and were left with 5K profit. That's awesome.

Rake is a constant in the game, and as such, we don't need to worry so much about beating it. It will be deducted without us having to think about it, and we can focus instead on beating the game. Obviously if that constant rake was reduced, we would see a benefit, but unfortunately that just doesn't happen enough.

My question to the forum is what makes you think rake is unbeatable?

I'm not looking to start some sort of heated debate, or defend my opinions. They are simply my opinions and as such I'm entitled to them. I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions on the topic and having some actual discussion.

Last edited by DingusEgg; 03-18-2014 at 04:35 PM.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-18-2014 , 05:40 PM
I envision comments about rake not being constant (unlike in tourneys) and reducing it by playing nitty (don't repeat it at home!) or at least at a ton of tables and hours to get a higher VIP level and ship races.

Isn't the lower net rake the reason you've moved back to iPoker? Or do you regard nits there as legit fish?
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-18-2014 , 06:11 PM
I moved back to Ipoker because I get better rakeback rate then on Stars. I don't feel compelled to put in insane volume to reach VIP levels because my RB return doesn't change based on number of hands.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-18-2014 , 06:23 PM
So do you see what I meant? If you didn't care about rake, you wouldn't have moved to where RB is higher.

Or did you mean just that what matters are post-RB winnings, while pre-RB winnings are only used by Stars regs to humiliate iPoker ones winning less after slightly higher rake in a tougher field, even those earning more post-RB? Then I agree.

I don't care about what Stars regs think about me. I'm on my own track. Meh.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-18-2014 , 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coon74
I don't care about what Stars regs think about me. I'm on my own track. Meh.
Nice, lol.

I never said I didn't care about the rake, I just don't really understand the complaining on pre RB winnings, and that the overall rake at sites is killing players profits.

I may be missing the point of your post.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-18-2014 , 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DingusEgg

Rake is a constant in the game, and as such, we don't need to worry so much about beating it. It will be deducted without us having to think about it, and we can focus instead on beating the game.

no offense, but this is utter bull.
you do realize we as a playerpool improve constantly and therefore the edge available to the skillfull players is ever diminishing?

the whole rake discussion on this site is not so much about claiming that rake can't be beat right now as there are indeed people beating the chit out of the games. rather it's about the communitys helplessness towards greedy multi billion dollar companies, who think it's nothing but fair for them to be the biggest winners by far in our beloved game that is PLO.
Some also have major concerns about the industrys sustainability. I don't think anyone on here is really an expert on this tho.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-19-2014 , 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickeLatte
no offense, but this is utter bull.
You just said my own opinion was BS, why would I take offence? lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by DickeLatte
you do realize we as a playerpool improve constantly and therefore the edge available to the skillfull players is ever diminishing?
I am aware of the improvement in the player pool, however should that be the fault of the poker sites that we are getting better? I'm not advocating for or against rake changes, I just find it interesting that so much time is put into something that is for the most part out of our control.

I guess I equate rake to taxes. Everyone has to pay them, nobody is happy about them. In the end we can all just go about complaining without much change, or accept that fact that its something we have to do, and move on.

I just take a different perspective on the whole topic and don't spend much time worrying about things that are generally out of my control.

Thanks for the feedback, just trying to get a grasp on other people's thoughts.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-19-2014 , 09:50 AM
Imo we shouldn't just sit on our asses and do nothing while the games are obviously being raked too severely. I acknowledge there's not a whole lot we can do about it. We can raise our voices here in the community and try to discuss the matter with PS but that's about it. I agree with DingusEgg that we shouldn't use rake as an excuse for our low winnings or such; the rake is beatable. But at the same time we should try to make the poker ecosystem more sustainable by trying to get the rake in PLO lowered.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-19-2014 , 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DingusEgg

I guess I equate rake to taxes. Everyone has to pay them, nobody is happy about them. In the end we can all just go about complaining without much change, or accept that fact that its something we have to do, and move on.

but wouldn't you gettin pissed if you get to know that the taxes you pay aren't for public services but rather used to pay for peoples salaries whose jobs aren't necessary in the first place? or have you never seen people working for the government thinking "well, that's all nice and candy but couldn't that have been done by half the people in half the time?"

i really like the comparison with taxes tbh. the situations look rather similar imo. I'm in no way considering poker to be a "tough" job compared to the things some of my friends do for work. however, we should start to realize that a serious SSPLO grinder is working so much harder than your typical stars employee who wouldn't even get a real salary without the players donating happily to the sites. don't get me wrong, ofc an average employee is nothing but a ***** to top guns, but the serious grinder seems to be everybodys ***** nowadays.


to take the situation further to the extreme: say the rake was already high enough to make it impossible for more than 1% of the players in the current playerpool to beat the games, would you still go the "let's just take it as it is and move on" road? because that's the future the PLO games are heading towards.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-19-2014 , 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickeLatte
but wouldn't you gettin pissed if you get to know that the taxes you pay aren't for public services but rather used to pay for peoples salaries whose jobs aren't necessary in the first place?
Pretty sure that's what most of our taxes do already, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DickeLatte
to take the situation further to the extreme: say the rake was already high enough to make it impossible for more than 1% of the players in the current playerpool to beat the games, would you still go the "let's just take it as it is and move on" road? because that's the future the PLO games are heading towards.
If that were the case, I wouldn't play the game. It would flat out be a bad investment.

I guess that's my whole confusion in the situation.

Lots of people complain about rake making games unbeatable, or its too high, yet they still continue to come back again and again and again. It just seems funny to complain about something that we have control over. Don't like the rake rates? Don't play.

However, it seems to be in people's nature to complain. If I were Stars and everyone was complaining about the rake being too high, yet I only ever saw my player pool increase, do you think I would change? Not a chance. You don't like the rake, go play somewhere else. That doesn't seem to happen enough, so no change will be made. You see entire PLO community leave stars, then you might see change. Until then, they will toss tiny changes every couple years just to keep people happy enough not to leave, without affecting their bottom line heavily.

That's why I tend to shrug my shoulders and move on. If you need to me to put my name on something in support of change, I'll do it, but I don't have a direct line to the people setting the rake, so I don't concern myself with it.

Last edited by DingusEgg; 03-19-2014 at 10:38 AM.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-19-2014 , 10:39 AM
i agree with the general content of your post.
you have to remember however, that it is PLO we're talking about.
if it was NLHE, i'd agree with you that leaving stars as a community probably would help big time. PLO players though are a minority, and stars' reaction to permanent boycott would be to just drop the game altogether.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 03:49 AM
I'm not an economist, and so this might not hold any water, but...

Lets say Stars reduced rake for PLO, and lets say they did it by 2bb/100, which is roughly 1/3. According to the chart below, that would move nearly half these players from marginal losers to marginal winners, which is obviously great for these individuals.

However, would this not just have the effect of encouraging more grinders into the game, making the games tougher and reducing everyone's profit? could the net effect be that tougher games mean less fish are willing to sit down?

I think there is a good fundamental argument that PLO players shouldn't pay more rake per 100 hands than NLHE players. However the key point is i think the "rake should be lower as the games are unbeatable" argument won't actually make the games more beatable - how many fish actually care about rake? you could double the PLO rake and i'd wager that it wouldn't bother the recreational player, but it would significantly reduce the amount of regs.

(apologies if some of these arguments have been presented before - given the depth of discussion on the subject, i'm sure they have)

Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 04:00 AM
If you wish to use taxes and income as an analogy.

The majority of PLO players are essentially working a job in which they do not get paid but rely on government benefits like social welfare (rake back) in order to take home a paycheque.

Is that what you consider fair?

Nobody is arguing that rake should be abolished. But what justification does the site have to tax you $15k on $20k earnings? What justification is there for overcharging compares to NLHE games? Is the overhead of a PLO table twice as costly as NLHE?
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 04:51 AM
Elrazor, more money in the community / economy, makes both higher profit possible and I assume ironically more games run (esp on higher stakes).
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 05:51 AM
yes Blopp, i think your post illustrates that each argument for rake comes from the perspective of that particular player - i had not considered that there may/may not be enough games running at high stakes.

I think again, approaching this from an economic perspective, lower rake could well mean more games running ergo Stars makes rake from these tables. There is a well trodden political argument in the UK (and i assume elsewhere) that raising the top line of income tax would not raise more money for the economy, and I would assume this argument may well apply (albeit in reverse) to the rake argument. If stars lowered their PLO rake, then it could well increase their traffic by a similar percentage meaning that they don't actually lose revenue.

Again, i'm sure these points have been debated before, and by people with a better understanding of the economics of the argument - I have to admit i'm fairly passive on the issue generally.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elrazor
However the key point is i think the "rake should be lower as the games are unbeatable" argument won't actually make the games more beatable - how many fish actually care about rake? you could double the PLO rake and i'd wager that it wouldn't bother the recreational player, but it would significantly reduce the amount of regs.
Rake may not entice or defer fish from playing but if it makes a group of break even RB grinders profitable to the point they can actually progress up the stakes and become success stories, it raises the image of the game. That would popularize the game more which is definitely good for the ecosystem.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankimo
If you wish to use taxes and income as an analogy.

The majority of PLO players are essentially working a job in which they do not get paid but rely on government benefits like social welfare (rake back) in order to take home a paycheque.

Is that what you consider fair?
The question is, why are players relying on the rake back to make a profit? It is not the overall rake that is contributing to their losses, it is the manner in which they decide to play that causes the issue.

In the image posted by Elrazor, you've got a ton of players with over 100K hands that aren't winning before rakeback. Perhaps the problem isn't that the rake is too high, perhaps the problem is that we are playing too many tables and expecting the rake not to add up over time.

I'd be interested to see the results of a very capable player sitting at 10 tables, versus that same player sitting at 1 table over 100K hands. What would the profitability look like after focusing on a single game. We are all aware that your rate of return diminishes the more tables you play. So if we reduced that table number to 1, or just stuck to the number of tables that gave us an optimal return, would rake be so much of a factor to positive results?

The reason Stars has VIP levels is to entice players to play more tables and generate more rake. It is partially our fault for buying into that system. I remember the days when I first started out and all you got was a welcome bonus and the occasional bonus throughout the year. Rakeback didn't even exist to the extent is does now (ie. expected), and yet players were still making profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankimo
Nobody is arguing that rake should be abolished. But what justification does the site have to tax you $15k on $20k earnings? What justification is there for overcharging compares to NLHE games? Is the overhead of a PLO table twice as costly as NLHE?
From a strictly tax perspective, my analogy for 20K falls a little flat. However, from an investment standpoint, if you were to invest 20K and get a 5K return over the course of a year, you would be pretty happy.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 10:35 AM
It's each player's choice whether to derive the profit from playing more focused at fewer tables or generating a bigger RB% sitting at more tables. For each player, there's a personal optimal table count, but I think there's no universal solution. Some can multitask efficiently but are bad at learning the intricacies of the game; some are good learners but poor multitaskers.

Given the current attitude of poker operators to winning players, I find it safer to earn the same money by grinding than by crushing, making me a more desired 'worker' for a poker room.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DingusEgg

I'd be interested to see the results of a very capable player sitting at 10 tables, versus that same player sitting at 1 table over 100K hands. What would the profitability look like after focusing on a single game. We are all aware that your rate of return diminishes the more tables you play. So if we reduced that table number to 1, or just stuck to the number of tables that gave us an optimal return, would rake be so much of a factor to positive results?
We know the answer to that question. It's common knowledge that multi table grinding came about because people did the math and realized that their cumalative WR when adding a table was higher even if their WR per table was reduced.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote
03-20-2014 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankimo
We know the answer to that question. It's common knowledge that multi table grinding came about because people did the math and realized that their cumalative WR when adding a table was higher even if their WR per table was reduced.
To a point though.

For clarification, multi tabling came about due to increased profitability as you stated. Mass multi tabling came about due to VIP schemes and rakeback challenges. As I stated before, we perpetuate the cycle of being hammered in rake, by buying into the culture of more tables is better, and play as many as we can to get bonuses.

As the number of tables continues to increase, we see a case of diminishing returns. That's why I added the second clause of the amount of tables that provides the greatest return. I should have removed the single table scenario, but did not. So lets say 4 tables vs 16+ tables. I think too many players fail to realize that diminishing returns is in fact a reality and just cram as many tables as they can into a session, assuming that the assessment of more tables equals more profits will always hold true. Unfortunately not the case.

As stated by coon74, everyone's optimal play level can be different, which does make the above hypothetical scenario difficult to measure. I just feel that it would be interesting to do an experiment with different numbers of tables and look at the results over a long term sample.
Adding another log to the topic of rake Quote

      
m