Poker “Rake” is the revenue generated by casinos in poker rooms all around the world. It is taken in different ways, in a tournament the rake is paid up front with an additional tournament fee that goes to the house and in a cash game the rake is taken each hand or time period. The amount of rake players pay differs from casino to casino and from region to region. In some areas of the United State players may be paying more than double the price to play poker than other areas. Online room generate rake in the same manner. Promotional Rake is also a fee paid by the players at lots of casinos that makes them eligible for various promotions and bonus hands. Rake can be a very costly expense to the regular player and players should always be looking for a good deal.
The rake in poker games changes significantly depending on what area of the country you are in. In Nevada you could be paying anywhere from $3/max per hand up to $5/max per hand, which is a 67% increase in rake. In the Pacific Northwest you will find a $3/max rake almost anywhere there is a poker game. In the Southwest and East Coast you will find similar rake to Nevada. California has the most expensive rake than all of them, they may rake the same max amount but they do not take rake based on pot size. For example, in most areas of the country if you were playing a hand and the pot had $22 in it the house would take a $2/rake because they only take 10% max when in California they take max rake before the cards are even dealt and then some casinos even take an additional rake during the hand.
Poker Players, especially regular poker players, should always be looking to pay less rake and need to understand how much the difference is between paying a $3 rake and a $5 rake. Let’s consider a scenario, a player played in a “rake free” poker game and averaged $20 per hour in profits or $800 per week. If they were playing the exact same poker game at a casino that raked $3/hand they would be paying about $8 per hour in fees and it would reduce his profits to $12 per hour or $480 per week. Furthermore, if you took that exact same poker game and applied a $5 rake they would be paying close to $12 per hour in fees and that would reduce his profits to $8 per hour and $320 per week. You can see how fast the rake adds up, if this player did not have to pay the rake in this game they could make over $40,000/year and when you apply a $5 rake this drops to nearly $16,000/ year.
I am not suggesting that casinos should not charge a rake for poker games or that players should not be willing to pay the rake, however, players should be supporting the poker rooms that offer the best deals. There are several factors that players use when choosing which room to play in or which game to sit down in including location, action, limits, rake, atmosphere as well as many others. Rake should be close to the top of this list, especially for regular poker players. It not only will save them money and increase profits; it will help keep the rake lower for the future.
I think everyone would agree that as a poker community we want the rake to be as low as possible. To do this, players must support rooms with lower rakes and the best promotions. For example, In Las Vegas, All Caesars properties charge a 10% $5 max rake while places like the Wynn and Venetian charge a $4 progressive rake which is significantly less. If a large number of players supported the $4 progressive rake and did not play a Caesars properties Caesars would be forced to lower their rake. Why would players want to pay the extra rake in the first place? Please do your part and help the effort to keep the rake low and keep the money in the poker community.

If all the nits started playing at one place, though, others will want to go the opposite direction to get away from them. And it would likely be profitable to do so.

Cliffs: Stop going to rooms with high rakes, support lower rake rooms.

If you read Dynasty's quarterly review of LV poker rooms, you'll find that Caeasars' rooms are far less populated than the Wynn or the Venetian.

Palms has a $3 rake and the best tvs and nobody plays there lol

Where are you getting this math from?

This is entirely dependent on how many hands you win and how big the pots are when you win them. Most places rake the same $2 out of a $20 pot (**** california), so the max rake doesn't matter.

I would argue that game selection and opponent selection is FAR more important to your bottom line that $1-2 in rake is. Go where the oblivious donators are, not where the rake conscious players are (they're more likely to either be nitty, or better/more aware of the game).

Obviously the math on hourly rake is an estimation, but is also pretty close to accurate for an average player. I understand that players who are more aggressive and play more pots will end up paying more rake, but thats not the discussion.

Someone above also mentioned something about all the nits going to certain rooms and the action would be better elsewhere and worth paying the extra rake. This is correct in the short term for sure but if players stuck to their guns and quit attending these rooms they would be forced to lower the rake or close up shop.

The biggest problem with the high rake is that that money is pulled out of the poker community forever, a very small portion of it will come back in comps or promotions but most of it is in the casino vault.

Based on WHAT?

I don't believe you in the least without *some* form of proof. You can't just state it as fact and not defend it.


What percentage of the player pool do you think is actually rake conscious enough to make such a decision?

I'd say no more than 25%.

That still leaves 75% of players that will make their game selection based entirely on other factors. Factors like which room has the hottest waitresses, best TV's, their favorite buffet, whatever. In general, the money from the rake goes to pay for the casino facilities and staff, so the more money the casino makes (higher rake) the nicer and better their facility should be (on average, obviously not *all* of the increased profits get re-invested back into the property).

A small fraction of the player pool leaving a room won't hurt the room. As I stated before, removing the top 25% of the players (those that read 2+2 and actively try to improve their game) will decreases the average skill level in a room, which also makes it *MORE* attractive for the better players to return (since their win rate is higher against bad opponents). So there will be a natural equilibrium where some good rake conscious players will remain even in a high rake room. The higher the rake the fewer of them can co-exist profitably there.

(This is a standard predator/prey type model, and would be interesting to play with in detail.)


This is the same "we hate the rich!" crap that gets spouted by the left all the time. Do you really think that the casino profits just end up in a big vault forever? They get paid out to employees and stockholders. They get spent on renovations and pay for tradesmen and construction. The money goes back into the *general* economy, which then feeds the poker community. It's not "gone forever".

tl;dr play or move somewhere else

Some form of proof? I figured that the common person could do simple math. You take the average rake the table is making and divide it between the number of players at the table. Of coarse you have to make some estimations but it is not really "secret information" It obviously depends on the game and action and will vary some but a game raking $3/ hand will rake about $70/hour while a game raking $5/hand will rake about $100/hour.

First of all, your correct, not a very high percentage of players pay enough attention to the rake. That is the porblem and part of the reason i started this post. Second, that yor 25%/75% are not even close and was hoping you could show me the proof?

You also are way underestimating the effect that 25% of players leaving a room would have. If Caesars lost 25% of their regular players they would have almost no game left. It not only cost them those players, it would have lots of negative effects on the room and drive away others. The room would feel less busy, seating would take longer, game selection would be poor, games wouldnt last as long....

Furthermore, the extra rake is going into the casinos pocket. Your gonna tell me that Caesars properties have nicer rooms than everyone because they rake more? Example Ballys vs Wynn....or Harrahs vs Venetian??

OP seems to be getting bashed because he is not backing up his numbers.
To be honest, I didn't even read his attempt. However, I'm sure we can all agree with his point that, assuming all else is equal, a lower rake is better than a higher one.

It's been a long time since I've been to Vegas, so I can't say what the rooms are like. I have a question for those of you questioning the OP's premise of patronizing the rooms with lower rakes:

What is it about Caesar's rooms that make them so much better to play in, compared to the Venetian or Wynn (these were the examples the OP gave) that makes you willing to pay the extra buck to play there?

I guess any example of why you'd play in any SPECIFIC room over any other SPECIFIC room in the same area, even though the room you choose to play has a higher rake. I'd also be interested in the specific rooms.

However, please only answer why you make this choice, not why other people might.

Question:

What's the worst rake in the world?

At the only casino in my city the rake is 10% capped at $10 at the $1/$2 table. The worst thing is the $5 per hour time charge. The two combined make up to an enormous amount of money and they both increase at higher limits. If the tables weren't so soft they were be unbeatable IMO.

Unless that game plays absolutely huge it IS unbeatable.

Why would anyone play in a room where they rake $10 plus charge you a time fee. That's tantamount to robbery or extortion.

This, pretty much.

You're a donk if you play at the Palms over the Rio and you can walk from one to the other.

If you make that walk in June or July during the WSOP please don't sit next to me at the table

Lol Rio is $5 rake palms is $3 yes it is $2 jackpot but that goes back to the players so if you play at the right times you actually get more than your share of the $2.

I could be wrong, but it appears that you are basing your $/hr paid in rake on the assumption that somewhere between 20 and 25 hands are being dealt per hour, but it also appears that you are assuming that every pot is being raked to the max, which is simply not the case. In most places it is 10% of the pot up to the max. This means to see any difference in the rake paid a pot needs to exceed $39. In a normal 1-2 game, this may be a few pots per hour in my experience, possibly half in a looser game, but certainly not all pots.

Obviously this is an increase in rake and may or may not hurt your hourly depending on the competition at each room. Of course if a game has a bad beat/jackpot drop of $1, then that is being taken out of pretty much every hand that has a flop, then you are going to be seeing a significant increase in the amount of money leaving the table.

You can also look at hidden ways that extra money leaving the table could hurt your hourly. People may not think about it, but if you are playing in a room that has a higher rake if you are 4 hours into a session, maybe you have a stack of $300 as opposed to $310 if the room took less rake. Well now you get you AA against an opponents KK that has you covered and you double to $600 as opposed to $620. This is $20 in your pocket that has been caused due to the higher rake on top of the actual rake that has been taken out of pots that you have won along the way.

I think these analyses are way too simplistic. It doesn't matter how much rake the average person pays, it matters how much rake you pay. The worse the the rake, the tighter you should play and you should try to pay bigger pots than smaller pots. I play much tighter in California than I do in Vegas. If your style is LAG, I think it is important to play in the lowest rake venue available. All you LAG guys, please stay at the V, the Aria, the B, and the Wynn. LOL

If you are a vampire, the amount of blood your victims have lost to leeches does matter.

I have noticed that generally as players go broke at my table they tend to be replaced by new players with new money. I stand by my original statement.

I love hearing this logic at my table. Let's me know either I have a fish or at least someone who is bad at math OR a casino employee trying to reinforce the dumb ideal that "you don't count the promotion rate as a cost to the winning poker players",

If it is such a good ideal why do the high limit players refuse to allow it?

Apparently those fish and employees know more about jackpot drops than you do. Promo rake in NV does get returned to the players and can easily be made +ev with a little planning on when and where you play.

Not sure if the jackpot drop is actually +EV or not, but given the choice between two otherwise similar rooms I'll choose the one with the higher current jackpot. Increases my expectation if I did manage to hit, and it seems to drive a little more fishy traffic (at least where I am) which makes the games better regardless.

Higher current jackpots will increase the number of players.

But I have always found that it makes the room worse by becoming very tight and nitty. Other players at the table will complain about any raises before and on the flop and say things like "how do you think we can ever hit the bad beat if you guys keep raising before at least the turn card??" I actually had a guy show me AK suited before he mucked it, because of a ten dollar preflop raise that one other player had called and said "I could have a straight flush that will help us win the bad beat, but xxxx these guys if they are going to keep raising like that". Of course the casino loves this, If most of the pots are very small, fewer customers are able to walk out ahead because most of the money is in the rake boxes.

It is very difficult to avoid getting grounded down, while playing in a room full of nits hoping to hit the lottery or a progressive slot(bad beat).

Of course as soon as the bad beat hits the room emptys out. Until the room can over many months drain enough money away from a small group of regulars to rebuilt a large fund that might be won by someone who seldom plays in the room.