I remember a while ago reading a post explaining why you should never turn down a flip just because you're paying rake.

If anybody remembers the gist of it or knows where to find that thread I would very much appreciate it.

I don't know were that thread is but i do remember reading it.

However i thought we are surpose to take rack into conciderration?

wtf i remember it too but cant seem to find it

I think a remember a few points..

a) Nothing guarantees you'll find a better spot later in the match.
b) Bad for hourly, somehow. I forgot the explanations.

ldo found it in the faq

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...74&postcount=1

awesome, thanks a lot.

+1 to lagdonk.

cliffs?

rake is a sunk cost. you're just trying to win a greater share of the prizepool. doing so allows you to move on quickly to another tournament and maximize your hourly rate.

I see... In cash games rake is always a factor in EV calcs because you pay it on a hand by hand basis. But in tournaments, its a sunk cost.

Seems pretty obvious now that I think about it. Hey, the more you know!

Actually I vaguely remember this, and I disagree on a practical level, but yet think it's not a big deal so it doesn't matter, but basically if you're CALLING off your chips in a spot that is very very very slightly +EV, you shouldn't, unless you think it'd be good for your image and you may play future games/hands, ie you've got villain outchipped and calling it off light here is close to even but will make match shorter as someone mentioned and/or make villain open tighter OTB and/or give you less credit overall. In general though, in these "close spots" you're doing it with a hand that villain probably won't make much out of, for instance you have top pair no kicker on the turn shallow facing a check raise where you're behind most value hands except some mid pairs but villain can have a bunch of draws, but they all have decent equity, etc etc, and somehow you figure to be even.

The thing is, yes, the rake is a sunk cost, so what I am saying is not to consider the rake exactly, but rather, consider your RoI. This obviously does not apply to when you're being sat by a better player or when you're not playing for profit, but when you are, the assumption is that you have a positive expectation whenever making plays against this villain. In fact that expectation with playable hands is going to be higher than 5-10% RoI because obviously you lose chips whenever you have to open fold or fold to a minraise. Don't know the maths, but what I mean is that vs a weaker player (assuming you're playing vs a weaker player) the bigger pots you play tend to have a noticeably positive expectation.

The fact is, by increasing variance, you play fewer hands per game, and thus you have less opportunities to apply your edge (this applies mostly to randoms who may not rematch, but even against those who do, you WILL be playing fewer hands per game, thus fewer hands for each time you pay the rake). Against better players, however, it's more important to increase your edge than to increase the exposure of your edge. Simple logic, I think. So while rake shouldn't be directly used to consider the EV of a call, it's not entirely without merit to use it as a gauge as long as you don't apply it literally. If you're making a call that is so close it'd be -EV considering the rake (as in the case of a cash game) and you think villain would hit and run if he won, but not if he left, then it's probably best not to do it.

Like if you're stacking off 22 in a spot vs a 3bet where it's really close, I usually just shut my brain and call, but if you want me to make the perfect play in a super turbo against a fish, it's probably correct to fold because if he's a fish and going to 3bet shove hands like K9o KTo 20-30bbs deep without considering flatting, I assume he's going to have a lot of leaks, like having an overly weak flatting range or maybe he has no flat calling range so even though he shoves a lot I can steal very wide, or I can tailer my stack off range to absolutely crush his, etc etc. So much so that by stacking off there you really can be limiting your edge, or in fact, be turning your expectation, your "g-bucks" of that game, to being even, and thus, unprofitable to play, when you should only be playing against players who you are +EV to play against, or where you are, on average, going to make decisions that win you chips (not to be confused with -EV decisions, since blinds are sunk costs, so you can make neutral decisions (folding) which would still lead you to lose money at the end of the hand, though obv it's forced so it's not the decision which cost you money but you get what I mean).

In practice it's like whatever, though. I have a par, I caw.

I just mean I think while not thinking of tournament fees as sunk cost is a bit of fallacy, simply trying to make decisions that are not -EV is wrong also. Any decision that isn't optimally +EV is wrong, and if your decision limits your ability to make hugely +EV decisions, it's wrong, and thinking of your rake (in conjunction with your RoI) is a way to think of it mathematically. Warning: I am a feel player, I just wing it in practice.

Anyway, while the rake consideration itself is not a strictly correct way of making decisions, but what it IMPLIES is the fact that you have a set edge. That is to say, the assumption when you sit a player is that your edge vs him is greater than the rake. AS LONG AS THAT ASSUMPTION HOLDS TRUE, your expectation in any given hand, before you see the hole cards is going to be X, and if you're making a play that causes you to win less than X chips including your future EV, then it's the wrong play.

Okay, let's say a super turbo lasts on average 10 hands. You have like, 20bb/100. Let's for simplicity's sake blinds don't change. So on average, you win 2bbs. 2bbs - T20/T500 which is 4%, so that means your RoI before rake is 4%, and let's say you're playing a 102, that's $2 gone, so okay, your edge is 2% RoI after rake.

If in your game, you do not consistently make decisions which overall are 10bb/100 or better, you will "lose in rake". Again, IF you think you have a 2% edge, that means you believe, if the 10hands/game etc etc simplified statistics are true, you think your winrate in each hand is 20bb/100. Therefore, if you consistently make decisions that give you a less than .2bb in EV, then you ARE winning less than you "should" be.

Of course .2bb is just an average, so what happens is some hands you lose .5bbs because you fold your sb, and most hands you call or raise you expect to win that back. Let's talk about the sb only. Let's say you're a nit and fold 1/3 of your hands OTB, that means you lose .5 every 3 hands, which means for every time you raise in the sb, you must have an expectation of +.25bbs, and including the .2bb/hand thing for 2% RoI, that means you need to be making +.55bbev on your every steal attempt ON AVERAGE, obviously making a steal that is "only" +.2bb in EV is still better than folding, but not if you're doing it consistently, or if it limits your ability to make HIGHLY +EV plays, then it might be wrong.

So to think about your play you can't just think about your EV in a vacuum but also how much exposure it limits you. Let's say this is the second hand of a match, you stole the blinds first hand, and he open shoves. You have a hand that you figure to be win you 1bbs by calling. You expect to win this hand 47% of the time and chop 4% of the time. You shouldn't call. If you fold, you'll be back to T500, and thus you'll still (in this hypothetical no blind increase ST) have 10 more hands on average, which will net you 2bbs in total on average, since you have a 20bb/100 expectation over an average of 10 hands. 4% of the time the hand chops and it doesn't matter, you're ahead T520 vs T480. 96% of the time though, you'll have either won or lost (well not lost, you'll have T20 left...) and no opportunity to exert your 20bb/100 edge, which, ON AVERAGE, is worth more than an EV of 1bb.

Okay rip this apart, go ahead. I am ranting anyway.

srsly is anyone considering rake? are your calculations really that precise that rake would matter?

and also... we looooooooove to flip!!