Quote:
Originally Posted by iraisetoomuch
I'm fairly sure this isn't correct.
If we imagine a simpler example where 1 person wins every hand, a change in rake directly affects that 1 person and that 1 person only.
Everyone else is putting in the same amount of money regardless of the rake, and getting back the same amount of money per hand (none).
You could make the case that people are raising a different amount in a higher rake environment, but I'd find it hard to defend that it isn't the winners who aren't paying the cost of higher rake.
Let's use an example that keeps the game of poker the game of poker.
Imagine if a casino charged no rake at all, or a regular group of casino players moves the game to a home game, which I have seen and been a part of before:
Would a winning player's hourly rate go up?
Would a losing player's hourly loss rate go down?
I'm sure everyone would agree that the answer to both questions is yes. If a winner earns more per hour and a loser loses less per hour, then how can both groups be gaining simultaneously if the rake only affects one group?
It's because the most consistent player at the table is sitting right next to the dealer's right arm and it's been eliminated from the game.
Of course lags pay more and nits pay less, but it has nothing to do with dragging the pot. As soon as you place unforced money into the pot, you're paying equity to the house equally with all other players who are in the pot with you, no matter how good or bad they are.