The other guy is right. You are double counting the 30 bb rake and 5 bb tip since these are already included in an individual's result. Taking 35bb out of the losers' pool would leave 28 bb and make the loss per person around 5bb which seems reasonable.

i think we're both analyzing an obvious joke a little too much

Should be simplest to just consider the dealer/house as another player and assign that position an appropriate "win rate" that includes tokes and rake.

Ya, dealer/house remove 35bb/hr, pretty straight forward.

Nothing is being doubled counted when we are considering how much people will have to lose to sustain all the money being removed from the table.

To further simplify everything, consider the game without house/dealer take, and list out all the variables.

Then reintroduce house/dealer and you will see that my original estimate was accurate.

So are the losers losing 53 bb/hr or 28 bb/hr or something in between? The way your original calculation works it seems like the losers are paying for all of the rake and tip when actually the winners are also paying for a portion of this.

Who's dealer? Sounds like a crusher...

When I get a chance, I'll break down everything.

I like this discussion, but is a whale really shoving ANY two? I doubt it. Most likely top 50% or at least top 75%. How is your equity then? If you tell my your particular whale shoves any two, ok, but I haven't seen that in my games.

I've seen them do it blind. They usually like to tell you it's blind too. Gotta watch them like a hawk to see if they check their cards though. Super easy angle on their part.

That's awesome Angrist. I've seen playing blind til a big decision (you bet big into them), but I've never actually seen blind play for more than about 30BB. Def never seen a 300BB shove blind.

Guy at Aria last week raised to $100 blind about 20 hands in a row and called off $1k shove on 7 or 8 of them without looking.

I posted recently a 5/T hand went down in my room with a 3way AI. Blind open blind raise blind shove call call. total pot over 16k.

Nice one. Cuts right to the heart of the debate. This is the easy way to set it up. Now we just wait for RP to balance the checkbook.

The problem with RP's initial post is that he was adding up the winning player's rake adjusted win rates in addition to the TOTAL RAKE paid by the table. Then he took this as the number that the losing players had to "cover."

The problem with this analysis is that the losers DO NOT have to cover ALL the rake. In fact, the winners may be covering up to 50% of that rake.

So, RD was concluding that the losing players needed to "cover" 53bb/hour when they only need to be "losing" around 38bb/hour (assuming that the winning players are covering the other 50% of the 30bb/hour rake).

So, yeah, RP was over estimating the necessary loss rates needed to sustain the winning players by 40% (53bb/hour is 40% over what the more accurate 38bb/hour number is).

Cliff Notes: There was double counting because RP insinuated that the losing players needed to cover 100% of the rake when the winning players are actually covering 50% of the rake in reality.

For people who don't understand the math, the reason why you don't understand is that you "see" the money being raked off the table, but you forget that it is being raked out of the winning players' pots too.

That's why this whole argument about "are losing players really losing enough at the table to support the rake + winning players?" discussion is stupid. The losing players aren't the only ones supporting the rake. The winning players are also paying their fair share of the rake to the house.

Yeah, but I doubt winning players pay 50% of the rake. Guessing this is just an overestimation to prove your point but I don't see much tables with more then 2 winners often.. and personally against calling stations I lose a LOT of small pots but win a lot of big pots, which means I pay a lot less rake then someone who wins 50$ dollars pot often.

You're overcomplicating a rather simple scenario.

We know what the house/dealer is taking.

We know what the winning player is walking away with after paying house dealer.

So now we solve for how much remaining players are actually paying to into the pool to sustain it.

The winning players already paid part of the house's take. So you can't just add up the TOTAL RAKE because part of that rake has already been paid by the winners who cashed out profits.

As far as the argument about who is winning more pots, I see plenty of crushers who win a ton of small pots. In my case, I win way more than my fair share of small/medium pots. Ask anyone who has played with me, and they will tell you that I pay more rake than anyone else (including the fishes).

The only part we are disputing is the part about the rake/tip jackpot. What your analysis fails to consider is that both winners and losers are contributing to the 35 bb/hour. The part that is being double counted is the winners' portions of the rake.

Hint for all you guys who think that WINRATE (of winning players) + TOTAL RAKE = LOSS RATE (of losing players).

You guys need to relearn arithmetic because part of the TOTAL RAKE was already taken out of the WINRATE.

Conservation of manies. Draw a control volume around the table. Winners take X bb/hr out, dealer takes Y bb/hr rake out, fishes put Z bb/hr in.

X + Y - Z = 0

You can add a "dealer takes Y2 bb/hr in tips out" too if you want.

The X and Z might be split un-evenly depending on the number of players, like 1 winner for 0.75*X and another for 0.25*X, but whatever, we can get an average winrate.


So a rake adjusted winrate is trival. There's no double counting at all.


If you're trying to say "in a game where there was no rake, I'd be making X+5 bb/hr" ... then you need to figure out who's paying how much of the rake (and/or tips). What are we assuming for the distribution of rake/hand at that point?

If we assume it's constant among players (not sure I buy that), then our raw win rate is (our fraction of ) X + Y/N_players_total.

Loss rates are on average Z/N_losing_players + Y/N_players_total.


Didn't anyone pay attention in thermodynamics?

Yes, I was confused about this too. If I buy in for 1k and cash out after 5 hours for 1.1k then my win rate is $20ph. Rake has already been taken out

Let's say we play heads up with a dealer.

I win 10 Bb per hour from you.

You lose 13 bb per hour.

The 3 bb per hour discrepancy are tips and rake.

There's no need to count them separately. It's been incorporated in the win and loss rates.