Yes it has been taken out and thus the 35 bb/hr total rake/tips/jackpot should be subtracted by however much you paid in rake.

No.

Or at least, IT DOESN'T MATTER. A fish doesn't care where his money went. Dealer tip, rake, other players, it's just gone. Likewise for most practical purposes winners only care about the post rake winrate, since there isn't anything you can do about that (other than not tip).

So the net $ onto the table, and $ off of the table are what matters. That's what we're calculating.

Dude, stop making yourself look more and more like a moron.

Right. So if you want to solve for how much the loser lost, you have to add the rake to the amount that the winner won. In your example 10bb (winrate) + 3bb (rake/tip) = 13bb (loss rate)

That's all we have been doing. People looking straight foolish ITT.

No. RP estimated the total rake/tips/jackpot to be 35 bb so whatever the winners paid for rake tips jackpot needs to be subtracted from the total amount otherwise you are double counting what they paid for in rake/tips/jackpot. Just look are the winners' winnings as being broken up into actual winnings - rake. So a 10bb winner really won 13bb but paid 3bb in rake. That 3bb he paid in rake needs to be subtracted from the 35 bb in total rake.

No. Scroll up and read my full post before that.

Dealer rakes/tokes 35bb/hr. Winners win 10 bb/hr after rake. This is the number that everyone tracks and everyones reports.

Assume 1 winning player at the table.

The losing players collectively put 45bb/hr into the game. That's their loss rate. It's the rate you'd calculate or report. 45bb/hr split by however many losing players there are.

It doesn't matter if the loser is losing 2 bb/hr to the rake and 6 bb/hr to the winning players, or 6bb/hr to the rake and only 2bb/hr to the winning players. Their loss rate is the same. Saying "they lost at 4bb/hr and paid 3bb/hr in rake" is worthless. What matters is how quickly they're pulling money out of their pockets.

Money goes onto the table, money comes off the table. It's neither created or destroyed.

You're still not seeing the fact that both winners and losers contribute to the 35 BB/hour rake, not just the losers. Since winners pay rake it is already included in their win rate and thus the rake must be calculated so it can be deducted from the total rake paid. If the winners pay 20 bb in rake that means they losers pay 15 bb in rake.

It's kind of ironic that you keep bringing up thermodynamics when you are the one double counting some parts in the system.

We aren't double counting. You are trying to subract things twice. Winning player's rake is already subtracted from their win rate and you are trying to subtract it again from the total rake.

You obviously didn't read my post. Or understand it.

What are you trying to figure out? How much the losers lose total? How much they lose to other players and how much to rake? The approach I outlined above works for both.

Losers put money on the table, winners take it off. The house takes it off. That is it. Considering the table as a control volume, there are NO other flows of money.

If you want to correct measured win and loss rates for rake paid, you need a model for how that rake is distributed among players. What's your model for that?

If you assume that everyone pays an equal fraction, I already said what the correction factors are.

Do you agree that total rake paid is 35 bb/hr? If so then how much did the guy who makes 10 bb/hr pay in rake and where in the calculation is it being subtracted from the 35 bb/hr in total rake?

Not sure how much more simple I can make this. Lets say the house collects 35 bb/hr. If the winners pay 10bb in rake then the losers pay 25bb in rake. Show me where in RP's formula he accounts for 10bb the winners pay in rake. Using your thermodynamics example it seems like it just disappears.

We don't know and it doesn't matter.




Win Rate (amount won from players - rake paid) + Total Rake (Rake paid by winners + Rake paid by losers) = Loss Rate (amount lost to players - rake paid)

or

Profit taken off the table by winners + Amount taken off the table by dealer = Amount lost on table by losers


I don't know how else to break it down.

Let's use t_roy's formula to see if it really adds up. Let's assume a headsup cash game where the 1 "losing player" won the first hand by stealing the winning players's big blind, but the "winning player" tops up his stack and then stacks the "losing player" on the second hand and breaks the game after the "losing player" doesn't reload. Assuming both players started with 100bbs effective and 1bb/hand rake too.

Win Rate (99bb - 1bb = 98bb)

Total Rake (1bb + 1bb = 2bb)

Loss Rate (100bb - 1bb =99bb)

98bb (Win Rate) + 2bb (Total Rake) = 99bb (Loss Rate) ?!?!??!

Seems like t_roy's formula means that 100bb=99bb. Something doesn't add up, huh?

Or maybe t_roy's formula is just horse****.

P.S. The Win Rate is 99bb (profit) - 1bb (rake paid on second hand dealt) because the "winning player" bought in for the game for 101bbs (added on 1bb after his big blind was stolen in first hand).

If someone with common sense watched the 2 hand headsup cash game go down, they would just say that the winning player pocketed 98 big blinds, the casino pocketed 2 big blinds, and the losing player lost 100 big blinds.

Somehow, t_roy's formula suggests that the losing player only lost 99 big blinds. So, somehow, the losing player magically got a 1bb rebate. At least in t_roy's fictional world, the fish has a magical redbird left in his pocket to pay the valet.

You ****ed it up.

If rake is 1bb per hand:

Win Rate (99bb [-1bb on 1st hand and +100bb on 2nd] - 1bb [rake on 2nd hand]= 98bb total won)

Total Rake (1bb [rake on 1st] + 1bb [rake on 2nd] = 2bb)

Loss Rate (-99bb [+1 on 1st - 100 on 2nd] - 1bb [rake on 1st hand]= -100bb total lost)

t_roy,

The losing player didn't win +1bb on his first hand because he stole the big blind and then had to give it to the casino as rake for the first hand.

So, the losing player started with 100bbs in the second hand and then got stacked.

So, the losing player bought into the cash game for 100bbs and then left with 0 bbs.

Wait, so you are saying that the losing player lost 100bb? It's shocking that 100bb just happens to be the same as the total amount raked plus the amount won.

If you would keep reading to the right, you would see the 1bb that I subtracted for the rake paid on the first hand.

OK then, I must be on crack because I misread your post. It actually adds up correctly. I take back what I said about your formula, and I apologize for criticizing it.

I don't know how much more simple to make this without drawing you a picture with arrows.

First off, I dug up RP's original post:

Now for my model, "conservation of manies":

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

X + Y - Z = 0

Can we agree on this simple statement?

At this point we don't care what's happening to the money when it's on the table.


Now we add RP's calculations:

X = 10 bb/hr + 8 bb/hr for 4 total players (8 bb/hr combined for 3p)
X = 18 bb/hr

Y = 30 bb/hr + 5 bb/hr for Rake + tip
Y = 35 bb/hr

So what is Z? The total loss rate.

Z is just X + Y = 18 + 35 = 53 bb/hr.


This is the number of new chips that need to be placed on the table to sustain the rake and winrates of the winners.

For 5 players that's 53/5 = 10.6 bb/hr/player.

These are rake adjusted win and loss rates. This is what a player's pocket feels. When they write down their results this is the number they use (or what shows up on their ATM receipt).


Is the average fish consistently peeling off $20/hr at a $1/2 game?
Based on how often I see players reloading, I don't actually think that's not all that far off.


So that's all rake adjusted, and we can agree on that, right?
There's no money going missing? It's all either lost by the fish, raked, or won by the crushers.



Now lets account for rake. But we need a model. Larger pots are raked more, so the size distribution of pots a player plays will effect how much rake is taken out of the hands that he's involved in (win or lose). This is a pain to try to account for, so lets simplify and say that in the long run it all evens out and everyone pays the same fraction of the rake. (In general I think bad players tip more, as they peel off redbirds for big and sometimes small pots, while crushers tend to stick to a dollar all the time.)

We've got 9 players at the table, 4 winners and 5 losers. 35 bb/hr in total rake/tips. 3.888 bb/hr each.

So the crusher that takes 10bb/hr off the table *wins* 13.888 bb/hr, and pays 3.888 bb/hr in rake, to net his 10 bb/hr.

The marginal winners each win 8/3 + 3.888 = 6.555 bb/hr before rake.

The losers net a loss of 10.6 bb/hr, so -10.6 bb/hr + 3.888 bb/hr = -6.712 bb/hr


So the losing player loses 6.712 bb/hr because he's bad at poker, and 3.888 bb/hr due to the rake.

While the crusher wins 13.888 bb/hr because he's such a bad ass, and still pays 3.88 bb/hr in rake.

With no rake the winners would win more, and the losers would lose less. But the money's still conserved, adding up the win/loss rates in a game without rake/tips:

13.888 + 3*6.555 - 5*6.712 = -0.0070 (close enough to zero with the roundoff).


There's no double or mis- counting here. Everything adds up. You could argue that the rake distribution should be shifted, but then that's another discussion.



This guy gets it, although the sign convention on the rake paid by losers is inconsistent:

I'm sorry but saying you're "pretty sure" there are "multiple" crushers itt who have >2k hours @10bb/hr is just continuing the delusion this forum is under.

They either don't exist on this forum, or do and fabricate their results in some way but I would think that's unlikely. My suspicion is that there is just none left with that kind of WR after 2k hours because 40bb/100 in ANY game of poker is impossible.

And stop comparing online to live as apples and oranges folks. Obviously I'm aware of the differences. When it comes to winrate the only thing that actually matters is the skill differential. And I know for a fact if a $0.01/$0.02 game can only be beaten for 20bb/100 then it is not possible to beat any other game at 40bb/100 (10bb/hr as many of you are attesting to).

lol

Dude, put your money shaker in play.

Here here, let me dumb it down.

Player A wins 15bb/hr without rake, 10bb/hr with rake.

Where does the rake go? Certainly not to the losing player. Yep, you guessed it, it went to the house at 30bb/hr.

Monte Hall itt