Agreed. For probably over 90% of players, rake isn't a consideration. Recreational player, which we have been or years don't really care. Poker is/was entertainment.

Now that we are semi retired (the business we didn't sell we have GM's to run for us) we play a little more serious and study more. But we still don't care about the rake as the extra income just goes to our families, friends, and charities...

Rake is truly only a concern to the small percentage of grinders out there at lower limits. Not to the majority of once or twice a week players who work decent paying jobs.

I appreciated your post. It's true -- people talk about this or that being optimal, completely without evidence.

On one local forum recently I read someone convinced their locale needs real, uncapped, no-limit hold'em instead of a big spread limit fake NLHE. Is there evidence Real Uncapped NLHE does anything other than redistribute $$$ to the sharps? That more people would buy in for their $200-300 buyin if there were no betting limit of $300? Probably no evidence at all. But people believe what they want to believe.

There’s no way to prove anything rake related without making assumptions on the player pool.

If you have the same 9 people playing no matter what, less rake is obviously better for players. But as soon as that changes things it gets hard to quantify the effect. Let’s say there are game A and game B both with $5/hand rake. Both games consist of 4 nitty rake-sensitive players, 4 very loose passive rake-insensitive players and one shark. Now game A changes to $10/hand rake and game B changes to $1/hand rake. As soon as the game starts, all 8 nits sit down in game B so there’s only one spot for a rec open. The other 7 recs sit in game A by default and that’s where the two sharks end up. Game A sounds like a lot of fun. Game B sounds miserable and there’s a good chance that one loose passive player will leave pretty soon and try to get on the list for game A.

Actually, I’ve read articles about the historical development of NLHE. It once was uncapped, and it almost had died off because of that. The fish lost too quickly and dropped out of the games. The only players left were pro’s and good regs, and consequently the games dried up and limit HE became the norm at most casinos. Capped buyins (plus the TV poker boom) resuscitated the NL game by allowing fish to remain in play much longer.

I agree with Madlex that it s very difficult to prove things about rake. Spent the last several years of my career were focused on economic optimization and supply/demand studies. Since true control conditions can’t be be had you never know about the path not taken.

But at least one can present their data ante logic used to support their claims.

I wish my home casino had 5+2 rake. Consider yourself very lucky if you have that in 2021. Or if you even have poker rooms open.

Like Federal and state taxes, the rake is the price we pay to play in a civilized society.

The poker room is the least profitable room in casinos, sometimes even a loss-lead to get people to play the more profitable slots and table games. My local casino just closed its beautiful poker room because it was unprofitable. What a bummer!

Where did the rake go while the poker room was open? A decent wage for the dealers, including a 401K and health insurance. Comfortable chairs and free drinks. Tellers to operate the bank. Most of important of all, security to keep out the cheats and thieves.

I have played in low-rake underground games in warehouses and boarded-up restaurants. They were profitable, with lots of action, a real thrill. Who were the fish whose stacks went into my son's 529 College Savings Fund? Angry Allen, who did eight years in prison for attempted murder. One-Eyed Mike, who lost his monthly social security on week one and whom I then saw panhandling on the street the next day. Gentle Jim the cocaine dealer on probation who whined that the police arrested him after speeding and took away his gun. I also always feared the gangs would come in with their guns and take not only the bank but also cell phones, wallets, maybe even car keys. The police once came to the warehouse with a tip about a big cocaine deal. Nice guys, they broke up the game and ran our IDs but didn't take the bank. We were fortunate that Hans, who had an outstanding arrest warrant, made it out the back door in time.

I've also played in home games where I worked the bank and regularly came up short, sometimes over $100 (why is it that the bank never had a surplus?).

I admire the pros on this site who can beat the rake. For the 90 percent of the rest of us schmucks who brag on this forum, the game is entertainment. In any industry--bars, restaurants, movies, sports events, live music, various clubs--entertainment costs at least $7 per hour at a minimum, more like $15 hr and up. Why should it be any different in poker? And those of us on this forum are winning, break-even, or not-losing-a-lot players. Where else can you have entertainment for tens of hours for such minimal costs?

I pay my taxes so that the police protect my property, my kid goes to school, my over-65 friends don't spent their retirement in poverty like old people did for centuries. For decent pay to dealers, nice chairs and free drinks, an accurate bank, and most of all security, I'm happy to pay the rake.

Those who don't want to pay the rake should join the freeloading, Bulldog-drinking freak show

Or you can run or attend games from 2/5 up to 507100 with professional nice safe normal people in well run home games.

BUT, and this is a big but, you need social skills, personal connections, and be a pleasant human to get invited.

Trust me there are many more home games running with $5 or below rake out there in most markets...

Why would I want to hang out with those people on my night out?! I've played in the dad's game of cardiologists, physicists, and assistant US attorneys. Brainy nits who don't post their blinds because their talking about kids soccer games and vegan restaurants. I'll take the riff-raff, low-lives, foul-mouthed unvaccinated who lose enough money to me so that I can come close to beating the rake. I'll pay the rake to hang with these colorful types so I don't get shot by the stray bullet poorly aimed at my armed dealer.

I should add, where I live, nice people want to play nickel-dime penny stakes like I did in eighth grade 40 years ago. If you want to play 1/2, you either let them put your chips in the box at the casino or play in low-rake games where throwing your chips across the table is frowned upon but won't get you kicked out.

Finally, I would point out that, yes, casinos and their shareholders and scumbag titans have to take some of the profit from the rake. But hey, why would they set up a casino if there was not profit motive? Their profits are heavily taxed by the state. Casinos often don't make much money. Foxwoods, which has the largest poker room east of the Mississippi, went into chapter 11 bankruptcy a few years ago.

That's a little light on details I think.

Foxwoods had borrowed heavily to build a new hotel and conference center plus paid MGM to use their name in the new building, right before the 2008 recession.

In addition, Foxwoods is in the middle of nowhere and faced increasing competition as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania began to permit casinos, pulling away many of their out of state customers who opted to visit newer and closer properties instead.

As far as rake concerns go, I fear it's only going to get worse now. Minimum wages are going up, costs of goods as well. It's only a matter of time before those expenses are passed on to the consumer. We're seeing it in many areas of our lives already.