1. A table is chosen at random for some special promotion, typically a splash pot in my experience, but in this case everyone seated at the table was given $500 of house money.

2. You checked in with your players card when you sat down, and you do not have a missed blind button which would typically make them clock you out.

3. A "down" is just the amount of time the dealer works at one table before moving to the next in the rotation. It is typically 30 minutes.

4. The promotion money was not received as a benefit because of anything the dealer did, such as deal him a royal flush which won the player a high hand bonus. This money was won just because he was playing at the table and the floor person randomly picked his table. He is saying he would tip more if it were the latter. Many others would as well, even though it is a completely arbitrary reason.

100%

can't stand that lottery system

But what about all the times someone called your raise/3! Preflop only because they had a “jackpot eligible” hand and wanted to get lucky?

Doesn’t that compensate in some capacity?

Unless you're playing 5-10 NL or bigger then the BBJ lottery tax is paying off more than you're willing to admit. Loose rec players love the BBJ and will go out of their way to play in rooms that promise the chance of a big score when lightning strikes. Your table is considerably easier to beat because this tax that you hate so much attracts the types of players that you love to play against. If you're playing 5-10 or 10-25 and your room insists on taking the extra buck or two for promotions then I'll concede that you're not getting anything for your money unless you actually hit the bad beat (or high hand, or whatever).

Most of this is lol, especially the last part, but aren't donkey stakes taking a percentage of the pot up to a cap instead of a per half-hour time charge? That means, according to your "loose game theory," the casino is making far more rake than they would during a Tuesday afternoon with no promotions. They are making far more in aggregate rake than any player is benefiting from an extra rake. They should be the ones coughing it up.

I'm not arguing that the bbj rake is to the advantage of winning players. I'm arguing that winning players can get *some* benefit from the bbj promotion without actually hitting the bonus. I'll put it another way. If the BBJ drop is $2 per hand at a 1-2 table, then a winning player should be able to get some amount of benefit (by attracting fishy players) that will result in the winning player paying less than $2 per winning hand, aggregate.

And of course the casino is the clear winner. The only time casino mgmt is sitting in an office and saying "What can we do for our players?" it is immediately followed by "and result in more money for the casino."

While we can continually discuss the 'benefits' of a room having a BBJ .. to some degree. I think a much better place to focus on within this discussion is High Hands.

IMO Players become numb to BBJs even when they are 'extra' large. But there's nothing like the feeding frenzy of a High Hand promo, especially if there's been a roll over. I think in both cases if you even hear a hint of conversation about the promos at the table then you are in a very good position to steal pots on the River after their draws all miss. And there's nothing better for your win rate than a weak passive table that's giving off tons of physical tells based on Board runout.

While 24/7 BBJ and 'Hand Bonus' promos are nice, it's the 'special' promos that bring in the extra Players that are specifically chasing those funds. That's where a strong Player should be able to see an increase in win rate for those sessions. Sure you may get run down 'more often' but you want them chasing .. eh? GL

I know what you are arguing, but rake isn't paid on winning hands alone. You are paying rake when you lose hands. The common misbelief that you aren't is the reason why dealers want $5-$25 on a decent pot and why rake is "I just won $500, who cares about $7 and a $5 tip" mentality and the player even forgets that he put in $200 of that $500.

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.

This is only true if the losing playing ever drags a pot.
Yes?

Here's another thought experiment:

Suppose your local room where you've played for 20 years decides to stop taking a jackpot drop of $2 max per hand. They're not discontinuing the jackpot because it's great for the room, but they'll be funding it directly from the casino as their way of luring players from the competition.

Now you go on a long trip. 6 months later you get back and the casino has changed hands, with new management. You learn the state approved a rake increase from $6 to $8 max. Still no jackpot drop.

First day back, you win a $10,000 jackpot! Are you just getting part of your money back?

Mathematically, no; practically, sure.

Edit: I answered this assuming a different question because I didn't see what you bolded.

You're talking about loss rate staying the same because there's a player that never ever drags a pot but has played long enough to have an actual established hourly rate?

This is true but with qualifications.

For 45 minutes a week (on Thursdays), my local room has a huge "rollover" HHJ -- between $3000 and $9000 is what I've seen. Qualifier is aces full of jacks, both hole cards playing.

That money's big enough to get me to take a lot of otherwise -EV lines, especially if it's late in the period (or "sudden death") or if I can chase a very strong hand such as a SF. It would be bizarre not to try to hit it. If I flop a set or trip aces with a big kicker, of course I check/call until the river. So I'm losing back some portion of the premium from other people's loose play.

(In this case I'm getting like $100 high hand equity for playing during that 45 minutes, so other people's jackpot drop is making me money. But that's beside the point.)

Ah, the rare instance where math doesn't describe reality.

I thought he was asking if a player doesn't ever drag a pot in his life, he doesn't ever pay rake.

I explained why this "never drags a pot in his life" guy in fact does pay rake, but in the practical sense it doesn't matter because a false equivalence argument using unicorn games where 1 player wins for the rest of his life and other players never win do not exist, so I said sure.

The only way math proves that everyone at the table pays rake is if you start with the assumption that everyone pays rake.


Before online poker this was never a thing. But, in order to incentivize players to sit in games, the online companies started offering rakeback. But if they only gave it to players that won pots (i.e. actually paid the rake) it wouldn't encourage most players to sit. So they came up with the rubric that everyone seated at the table gets assigned a portion of the rake for a pot.

Everyone does pay rake and we've done it well before online was a thing or rakeback was offered.

Rake is taken out of the pot before a winner is declared. 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 who drags the pot.

Online shouldn't have introduced the model of everyone gets equal rakeback for being dealt into the hand; they should have given it based on money placed into the pot.

Seems a strange distinction to make. If the rake wasn't taken out until after there was a winner would that actually change anything? How about if it was just set aside but not dropped? Oh, wait...

So if you put $500 in the pot and another player puts $500 in the pot and the dealer takes $6 of that and puts it in the hole, $3 of that wasn't yours?

No. Because the chips are fungible. They belong to the pot. And the pot lost $6.
The person claiming the pot will only get back $494 in profit instead of the $500 in profit he would have otherwise.

Exactly. The $6 came from the pot. The pot came from the players who put the money in the pot - both the winner and loser of the hand; ergo, they both paid the rake on the hand.

very good point, i've definitely had people make absolutely trash calls (to try to hit yahtzee) or even check back quads hoping to let someone improve to make it a bbk or because they have a set but check back the super wet board because they don't want you to fold as they want to improve for the high hand bonus

perhaps they are useful afterall

What about people who are simply bad at poker and who show up at your table because they're chasing a promotion that day? Even if they weren't dealt a bb or hh eligible hand that particular time, just having them at your table increases your ev.

This only holds true if you play a game spread in many casinos. No one is going to play 20/40 LHE because of the promos, and almost no one is going to play more hands because of it. Almost all of my poker has been played in rooms that were the only place in town for that game.

When I used to play in AC, the rooms with a big BBJ would get more traffic, but it just moved the 1/2nl and 2/4 LHE from one room to another, it didn't really bring in new players. No one takes a trip to AC and then doesn't play poker if the promotions aren't great.