This. More focus on strategy less on rake.

Another big problem with the lowest limit live is most people buy in for the minimum, so you're often playing vs $40 stacks eating $7 rake per hand. You dont really have to be a poker god to clean up though. Some of the worst players I've seen will cash out for 1k+ at a 2/2 game just because they got it in a bunch of times. Not even necessarily running hot, just getting paid off repeatedly by 50BB stacks and such. So it's more kinda like just hoping to be there at the right time.

I think the word "most" is a bit of an exaggeration. More than half the 1/2 players buy in for the minimum? Not where I play.

During the day time I would say there will be 2-3 min buy ins at a 10 handed table ($60 where I play).

During the evening, there may still be 1-2 min buyins but there is also 3-4 max buy ins which is $300 in my room. The others will be $100-$200.

^ this is probably more accurate. My memory is likely biased from the rage I feel when someone sits down with their buyin hidden in the palm of their hand. I assume theres a chip runner getting the rest once they are dealt cards until I lean forward and see "ah, 8 red chips, sigh"

Here is the problem with gobbledygeek's example:
He bet $15 & got one caller. The BB. If he he had made it $18, V would have to call $15 more & pot would be $32 after the rake.

Now he can bet $22 & there will be $73 after the rake.

gobbledygeek robbed himself of $3.00, when he only bets $22 OTT. You must be conscious of the pot vs. rake early on, or it will eat you alive in the long run.

Another thing to think of: keep your stack at the max & DO NOT tip from your stack. If the max is $300, do not let it drop below $295. One all-in that you win, with $265 in front of you vs. a V that had $300+ is painful.

Say you've been playing for hours, won a number of pots, but lost one big one & have recovered & are now sitting on $450 and a player has you covered. You've tipped a total of $15 during the session.. You get it all in vs the guy who covers & win.........you win $15 LESS than you would have if you had not been tipping from your stack.

Now tips cost you $30 instead of $15.00 because you tipped from your stack. Or, if you're a math geek: You had 60% equity when you got it all in. $15 * .6 = $9.00 loss long term.

Zune: But doesn't that mostly apply to any bet sizing? i.e. betting $20 instead of $21 on any street "costs" me $1 if I woulda got called.

Interesting thoughts regarding not tipping from your stack though.

However, after thinking about it for a bit, overall I'm not convinced it makes that much difference. If you've seen my posts over the years, you'll note I'll start off most of them with "top up" (if you feel you are at a good table). But even M said a while back that it is unlikely it would have cost me hardly anything over the years having not done so, and I'm finally coming around to the fact that he might be right (especially in my game's current conditions). Basically, as long as you have the fish covered, then it's unlikely this tipping method will help you. I mean, after all, when was the last time you got in $450 versus anyone? It probably happens so infrequently that it has hardly any affect on the bottom line (and meanwhile the difficulties of playing deep might outweigh the advantages of playing short).

But if you do constantly find yourself stacking fish and you have less chips in your stack than theirs thanks to your tipping out of your stack, then agreed, this will have an affect.

GI'veneveractuallyseensomeonetipfromoutsidetheirst ackG

I can't imagine someone folding for $22 that would have definitely called $20.
I've had people ask me "Why $18 instead of $15?" and I'll respond "Because that will make the pot a total of $59 and the house doesn't get to rake any of the $9 unless we bet/call the next street."

I believe it's better for the winning players, if everyone at the table is thinking that way, so I'm willing to share my line of thinking. When the players are trying to nickle/dime the house in games where pots often don't allow the house to get the max rake, the players are winning when they max it out to the nines! That dollar you save can be used to tip the dealer which you were going to do anyways.

Yeah, I agree with you to a point, but doesn't that apply to every single bet we make? I mean, if you end up betting $25, then why didn't you go $26?

GsplittingstrawsatthispointG

in casino niagara the rake is $6/.5 hour, which i find expensive. This is why I play tournies

Well, it depends on what's already in the pot. You want to get close to a 9.
Now pre, I'm always betting $12, $13, $17, $18 type numbers, when it looks like there's a good chance it will be HU.

If it's folded to you & you're OTB with a $12 hand, then it's worth $13. If only the SB calls, there's $28 in the pot b4 the rake. Perfect.

Now if you get a favorable flop, you can bet [if it's checked] accordingly to get close to a 9. If you bet 3/4 pot, that's $21, bringing total to $70, maxing out the rake. So why not bet at least $22 & preferably $23?

Of course, if you want a call & believe he is going to call $20, wouldn't he call $22? But if you're not sure he'll call $20, but want $20 or take what's there, well then you have to bet $21, which is not going to affect your V's decision. But if you think it might, $20 it is.

When you want a call, betting the right amount that will achieve that is #1. Taking into account the rake is #2.

Let's assume 10-handed table. This is $120/hr in rake. Seems like a lot, right?

Well, assuming 30 hands per hour, that's an average rake of $4/hand. Others ITT are reporting 10% to a max of $6. Obviously, not every hand maxes out, but IME > 2/3 of them do. That means 20x$6 ($120) plus whatever is raked in the 10 small pots. I'd guestimate that your time rake is ~ the same as a 10% to a max of $5, which is not cheap, but not outrageous by current standards.

Meanwhile, it is rare to find a daily tourney that rakes less than 20%. I don't think you are making the correct value decision.

$12 per hour in time rake?!?

That's one of the lowest time rakes that you will find.

Ha, it's funny, my initial reaction to his rake was "wow, that's a lot", but then of course you put it in much better perspective.

Which also really hilites what a devastating affect rake has on low stakes. This guy is paying a fairly decent rake of $12/hr, which is what he has to overcome *simply to breakeven*. Which really gives an indication of how much better than the field you have to be in order to be a winner at these raped stakes.

GcluelessrapedstackesnoobG

Game I play in mostly is 5/5 optional straddle up to 25 and rake is 5% $15 max.

My guess is typical stack size is a necessary indicator of how big of an affect rake has. If everyone is sitting on $1K stacks, then $15 max might not be all that much relatively, especially if a lotta pots are big (and with a $25 straddle I'd assume that would be the case).

GcluelessrakenoobG

Buyins are 500-1500 and I've been in for 8k before. But average stack is prolly 1500-2000 for the majority of the time

Yeah, so in a game like that with big stacks and big $$$$ flying around then the relatively piddly rake isn't much of a concern. Especially compared to, for example, a game where everyone is nursing a ~$200 stack in a $7 max rake + $1 BBJ + $1 tip game.

GcluelessrakenoobG

Wouldn’t be bad if they dealt their hands quickly. But my experience there has been they are slow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think avg winrates at live 1/2 and 2/5 is usually around 30-40BB/100 for crushers though. Live is a mixed bag, I've never really seen a breakeven player or a marginal winner at these stakes. You either crush or get crushed, so the rake has no impact on you. The games consist entirely of absolute fish and players who might as well be using a hand chart to play preflop.

GG gave an example of raising preflop just to take it down by the turn and lose half his profits to rake. Thing is most of the time you're seeing showdowns or huge multiway pots that practically get 100BB in by the turn with action still to come.

A 5/5 game with 5% rake, capped at $15, is a high rake game. A ton of money is being raked off of the table. The owner/operator is making a killing. And if you saw the drop at the end of the night, you would want to start your own game.

Yea its about 300-400 an hour before expenses.

Really?

Gwhereisyourtimemachine?G

Oh yeah, definitely not denying the house is making a killing. But I'm guessing in big stack action games that rake still makes up a much smaller percentage overall to not be as much of a concern.

For example, if you get in half the money in a $100 pot at a $7+$1+$1 rake, your actual tax on your $50 win is $9 which is 18%. If you get in half the money in a $1000 pot at a $15+$1+$1 rake, your actual tax on your $500 win is $17 which is 3.4%. You have to be *much* better than your opponents when you are being taxed at such a high relative rate in the smaller stack game.

GimoG

your probably right but you only pay a one time fee so you can just focus on your play during tourneys and not have to worry about the dealer always asking for 6 bucks when your stack keeps dropping due to bad beats

He is DEFINITELY right and it is well known that the rake in MTTs is atrocious compared to the rake in cash games. Not to mention the variance makes it more difficult to outrun.

If $12/hr is having a noticeable impact on your stack, you need to bring more $ and top up.