Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
rake considerations rake considerations

05-22-2008 , 11:47 PM
I recently sat down at a 3/6 table on Stars and played against a villain I had never seen before.

We both started with 120 dollars, I feel like I had a pretty decent sized edge on him and I ended up busting him and he left.

At the end though, I was left with only 217.50 and the realization that the rake had taken 22.50 in only 60 hands. This extrapolates to a little over
6bb/100 hand.

I'm fairly certain that finding opponents that one can beat for huge edges would prove pretty difficult long term.

Is 3/6 HUHU simply unprofitable to play long term? At what point does the rake become more easily beatable? 5/10 or do you have to go all the way to 10/20?

Stak
05-23-2008 , 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stakman1011
IAt the end though, I was left with only 217.50 and the realization that the rake had taken 22.50 in only 60 hands. This extrapolates to a little over 6bb/100 hand.
Well half of that because you only pay half the rake.
05-23-2008 , 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leader
Well half of that because you only pay half the rake.
Lol you're right that was pretty ******ed of me.

Still, over 3bb/100 seems quite a lot. Is it just that WR's can be much higher HUHU and thus the rake is still beatable?
05-23-2008 , 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stakman1011
Lol you're right that was pretty ******ed of me.

Still, over 3bb/100 seems quite a lot. Is it just that WR's can be much higher HUHU and thus the rake is still beatable?
It's not that much higher then 6m:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...47&postcount=8
05-23-2008 , 05:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leader
Well half of that because you only pay half the rake.
not entirely true
05-23-2008 , 09:46 AM
Given Leader's link, the rake at 3/6 huhu is 2.34BB/100. Your pre-rake winrate can easily outmatch that with good game selection.
05-24-2008 , 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
not entirely true
yeah, but it's close enough. In reality if you're playing a freezeout then the winner is playing the rake and the loser is just losing a chance to come back. Since we can assume OP is a winning player most of the time, he would pay more rake. If we're playing is unlimited stacks, then the person who wins the most pots pays the most rake and this could be us or them depending on how our styles match up.
05-25-2008 , 12:08 AM
yeah exactly.

It would be unlikely, but I suppose possible, to be a losing player in a match and pay most of the rake.
05-25-2008 , 02:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
yeah exactly.

It would be unlikely, but I suppose possible, to be a losing player in a match and pay most of the rake.
It would be difficult in a short match because most likely when you run well your winning many pots. Over the long run though, I think there are plenty of guys in which it's optimal to have them win 51-52% of the pots because they are simply over the top agro. In this scenario, you would be employing a straightforward style in which let's him have many pots where you both have nothing but you win the big pots which covers that loss.

      
m