How is this home game rake structure?

2/4
min buy in $200
max buy in $2k
decent action

4% rake with a $80 cap

Also, is a $8 UTG mandatory straddle better under this rake structure?

80 cap????
Who runs this, Tony Soprano?
This sounds unbeatable.

That's the worst I've ever heard of, up to $80.

Wow, really weird.

Off the top of my head, my guess is that fighting over small pots would be worth it thanks to the rake being so small (unlike fighting over small pots in a normal 10% raked game where too much of the small pot is being raked), and yet fighting over big pots might not be as worth it (again, totally opposite of normal 10% raked games with a reasonable max rake which makes big pots outrun the rake).

My guess is that it ain't actually that bad. I mean, if a big $400 stack goes in (ok, not sure how "big" that would considered in your game, but in my 1/3 NL game where lots of people buy in for $200 that is *huge*), your rake in a HU case would be $32 which would be 8% of your profit. My game the rake of $7 would only be 2% of my profit, but on the other hand the difference between the two actual profits is only $25 or 6% of an overall big pot (does it really matter that much if someone is dumping $393 vs $368 in a good game?).

I'm really unsure. It might not be as bad as you think but I could be convinced otherwise.

GcluelessNLnoobG

I forgot to add.. average stacks are in the $400-600 range with maybe one or two $1k+ stacks on good days. I personally bought in for $500 in this game.

Do the stacks fly around in lol fashion? Even though the max rake is obviously lol, my guess is if stacks are being punted in lol fashion often that this is the overriding factor in spite of the big tax.

Pretty sure this tax structure would probably be more profitable in my game than my current 10% / max $7 where most pots aren't huge but most reach $70 pot size (max rake), but I'm not 100% sure.

Gstillunsure,tobehonestG

There's a lot of pfr raising in the range of 5x opens and 2-3 calls from weak holdings with bad odds regularly, but postflop play is somewhat tighter. The "house players" really suck though, I just haven't been lucky to catch them yet.

$80? Never. My home game (1/2 and 1/3) is $5 max, and most stacks are $500 - $2,000. (There are high hand drops.)

This seems to be an overriding concept of the day that I'm replying to in multiple threads.

With deepstacks, you might not be playing nearly in the fishtank you think you are.

GcluelessNLnoobG

That cap is almost pointless as it will be rare to exceed that with 4% rake.

No rake pre i assume? Seems like a game that would best serve a good lag, but still it's really not very good at all. Like always - depends how bad the players are.

That’s what I’m thinking too.

For the rake to reach $80, a pot needs to be $80 * 25 = $2k.

And the largest pot I must’ve seen in 12+ hours of playing was maybe $1200-$1400, with most pots being in the $200-400 range.

Even fish can sit deep.

Would not play.

If someone said, "Hey BDF, do you want to play in a home game with an $80 max rake???" I would laugh in their face.

Tough to get a handle on the game from your brief description, but the fact that some players are calling off $20 opens with lol hands if they are sitting $2K deep (100:1 isn't exactly "bad odds") doesn't make them fish. If they get in big stacks with lol hands postflop, that makes them fish (although you stated the game plays tighter postflop). You play in the game, so we'll assume you know what's what.

GcluelessNLnoobG

salty?

I never mentioned that the people calling $20 opens were sitting on $2k. Infact, I've not seen anyone sit more than $800-1k in this game until now. Most of them have stacks in the $200-400 range. And with those stacks, they'll call $20 with stuff like ATo, 76ss, etc.

This is a decent rake IMO. Everybody in the thread is ignoring the significance of 4% vs a more standard 10%. 5% with a very high cap is highly beatable in online micros.

$8 UTG straddle would be great rakewise if everybody buys in close to full and you are rolled for what’s basically a 5/10 game.

A $125 pot is only being raked $5. The take being practically uncapped only matters in the rare monster pots. If monster pots are regular then it’s an amazing game and worth the rake anyway.

First, the math.

Compared to a 10% rake, capped at 5, the pot will have to be 150 before the extra rake would come into effect. Given the observation bias (we remember big pots, we forgot all the pots where people folded on the flop), it isn't a bad rake structure.

The owner of the game would certainly encourage a straddle to get the pots big. That isn't to the players' benefit.

Right, and since most pots are below that $150 threshold, I guess it's not that damaging. And some of that damage gets compensated for by the 6% difference everytime a pot <$150 is being raked, which is like 80% of the pots.

I'm still unsure, even when comparing it to my maxed $7 10% game. Like if I'm shortstacking my 1/3 NL game (which I now usually am at $200), I basically looking for a spots to get in my ~shortish stack with big pair hands; I did that twice last night. In the one that I won, I was taxed $7 (not including BBJ+tip); but in your game I would be taxed $16. Am I going to make up that $9 difference per $200 stack pots in the smaller pots that I drag between the hands I play for stacks? While dragging the smaller pots would definitely be better in your game than mine, it's debatable if you actually come out ahead when counting the bigger tax on the bigger pots (especially if stacks or big percentages of them aren't being punted in lol fashion).

GstillunsureG

games under $100 Buy in is Zero rake.

recently joined a 5/5 game 1 option straddle. no min no max buy in.
$25 to join the game. no rake taken during the game.

People buy in between $300 and $2,000

So if you play like an 8 hour session (my average) you pay like $25 total in rake for the whole session?!?!

Wow. Unless I'm missing something, that is likely the best rake structure in the poker universe.

GcluelessrakenoobG