one thing i was thinking about lets say i am beating 1-2 for 7-8 bb an hour so 15 bucks an hour or so.

but the rake max is 5 dollars plus a 2 dollar bbj. so 7 dollars a pot. lets say i win what 2 pots an hour obviously not all of them are max rake pots, but seems like a decent shot in the dart guess.

so i am getting raked 10$ an hour plus the 4 dollar bbj. for a total of 14 dollars an hour.

now lets say i play at a casino with less rake like a 3 dollar max rake casino with no bbj.

i now just increased my income from 15 dollars an hour to 23 dollars an hour. for an over 50 percent raise.


now obvious, there are a bunch of other factors to consider, rent/housing prices and in low rake casino area, the strength of play of player pool and stuff like that. but there seems like there is a lot of value in just playing at a low rake casino.

Rake is probably the single biggest factor in winrate for a low stakes player (assuming they are in fact winning)

With a few exceptions and nuances the strength of 1-2 nation wide is probably negligible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where are you going to find $3 max rake?

Saint Louis has 4 + 1 across the board I believe. Probably as low as you are going to find it.

No

Iowa has 10% or 3 dollar max. Some of them have a bad beat jackpot which is an extra dollar i believe. So it's actually 10% or 4 dollar max at some. Any more than that and I wouldn't play.

I sometimes play in a 1/2/5 rotation game thats 10% max up to 25 for nl and 50 for plo. come at me nits.

Damn I'm so jealous of you American players...

Rake at 1/2 here is 10% capped at $20. And to make matters even worse: the max buyin is $100.

But yeah in answer to your question: the rake makes a huge difference.

In my casino, the rake is so bad that if you sit down at a 1/2 table, buy in for the maximum, then stack off AK vs QJ preflop (you're a clear favourite here), you actually haven't won any EV at all. This is breakeven because of rake.

When rake is too high, you could play against the biggest fish in the world and still lose money.

Then again, when the competition is too tough, you could play in the lowest raked games in the world and still lose money.

You need to find a balance where you look at both variables: how soft it is vs what the rake is.

6bet has a point.

But I'd rather play a table full of recreational players who don't care all that much about a medium or high rake (getting harder to find a table like that these days but they exist) ... instead of a table full of guys from 2+2 who are playing at that particular card room expressly because the rake is the lowest available.

Something to consider.

More rake is not better but if I were in Vegas I would play wherever had the highest rake, worst comps and most expensive parking.

+1

Our 2/4 Limit game had a $3 maximum rake... until 2010.

Rake in the lowest stakes / lowest BI games will become to have more and more a devastating affect on everyone's bottoms line, so if you can find a good game with a low rake obviously do that. Our 1/3 NL game has increased it's rake $1 per year over the last 3 years (now sitting at a maximum $8 + $1 BBJ), and obviously it will only continue to increase in the future (as there's no good reason it wouldn't).

Ggoodlucktousall,imoG

You'd think this was a good idea, but doesn't seem to hold up.

The Venitian cut comps in half and upped rake because they wanted to shrink their room. They also give you $25 and $100 chips when you buy into 1/2 which I think might be another way to say FU. (They do have free parking, though).

But, the games there are often terrible. I have no idea why a lot of local nits play there, but they do.

The Orleans and CP offer great values to players, but the games are often quite good.

Anyway, I concur that rake is a huge factor at lower stakes.

Not even possible unless you live in LV or AC or some other major gambling city that gives you options. And I'd be shocked if you can find any casino that has significantly lower rake than their nearby competitors; that's just bad business. Why would any casino do that except very temporarily to attract players? It's a stupid business decision to make long-term, and casino owners are usually not stupid.

I live in the 4th largest city in Canada and there is exactly 1 casino that offers poker.

I used to live in the largest city in Canada and casinos are banned by the city.

You're basically asking if you should move your life to a new city for the sake of playing 1/2. I think that's not a smart decision.

Work out how much extra time you are spending on this because you might be better off studying and moving up stakes instead.

Most Vegas 1/2 rooms rake $5 and $2 promo now. Not great for the locals but even worse for tourists who are not around to play the free roll

Venetian has, by far, the least amount of grinders of all the major poker rooms because of this.

+1 to whoever said play at the highest rakes, lowest comps, etc. etc.

^ True that.

Game selection is the most important factor (well, running good is more important but that's out of our control).

Hurray for St Louis. $4+$1 at all 3 rooms.

In Saint Louis Lumiere has by far the worst comps and by far the best games. There is a correlation I believe.