One thing that I find strange about some discussions here is that a lot of time people will call a game "unbeatable".

Granted, that can be considered the case in the long term, but for somebody who isn't a professional or even just plays a couple times a week, should rake be considered a metric to base game selection on?

I've found that the rake outside of the US is usually much worse than here, but I'm overseas only 6 times a year and probably only play poker on 3 of the trips. Should I care about the rake if I'm going to be logging a 4 or 5 hour session?

I understand the ramification of rake if you play regularly, but if I'm going to be in Vegas for 5 days and I'm looking for a juicy game, I don't care much about rake because I'm looking to log a win based on the looseness of play, not the grind.

It just seems to me that a lot of times people are told to stay away from such and such a place because the rake is terrible, but is this correct for the recreational player?

Thoughts?

OP, If the state you reside in raised income taxes to 50% would this effect your decision to work your current job? Even if your friends, family, wife, girlfriend, friend w/ benefits, and concubine all live in your hometown wouldn't you consider moving to the state next door that has income taxes of 5%?

The same thing applies to rake. It doesn't matter how juicy a game is if you can't keep any of it.

That's a pretty extreme analogy, don't you think? A player friendly rake is a room that charges a max of $3 per pot. A huge rake in the USA will charge a max of $5, but no more than 10% of a pot. If there's a room in the US that charges more than $5 rake I haven't heard about it.

Playing regularly, will those extra $2 affect your EV? Of course they will. Should they deter you from having fun on a 5 day gambling vacation? Of course not.

Let's say you win 3 pots an hour. Paying $6 rake you will pay $18 per hour. And let's say you play 8 hours. In total you will pay $144 in rake.

What if you played somewhere with only a $4 rake. In 8 hours you will pay $96 in rake. What's your savings?

$144 - $96 = $48 for one session. If you are playing $1/2 that would be a 3 bb/hour savings. But if you don't care about that think of it this way--it would be a nice steak dinner you could have for yourself rather than paying it to the casino instead. And if you spend a couple days or even a week playing at the higher rake place it really adds up.

There are plenty of places which take a $5 + 1 for promotion (CET in Vegas, any Indian casino). And I've heard of a few $5 + 2 places as well.

Most of the casinos in South Florida have adopted the $5 rake plus $2 jackpot policy. But since the jackpot is separate from the rake, I don't count it.

Why don't I?

The jackpot is state regulated. Money from the jackpot has to be given back to the players through promotions or else the casino could lose their gaming license. Most of the rooms have a high hand jackpot each hour, paying anywhere from $100 to $1000 per hour. Other rooms have bonuses for royal flushes, or bad beats. This is a player funded jackpot, and 100% of the money goes back to the players.

Some of the players complain about the jackpot, but the majority of the players like it. I know this because they're vocal about it. They want bigger promotions in South Florida and will go to the rooms with the best prizes. Personally, I'd rather the $2 stay in the pot, but as long as I win my fair share of high hand prizes, I won't complain about it.

If the state I resided in raised income taxes to 50% it would be an issue, but a better example would be if Hawaii levied a 10% tourism tax on all vacationers. Should it keep me from going there for a 7 day vacation? I'm in my home state all the time. I'm in casinos maybe 40 days out of the year.

I get the priniciples of rake, but my feeling is that for recreational players, games are either beatable or un-beatable more due to your own skill and the table make-up instead of rake. Rake contributes to it, but way too often I'll see a replay that, "Don't play there - the game is unbeatable due to rake" as if we are all professionals grinding daily 6 hour sessions.

I can see what you are saying, but in terms of discussion it is money going out of your pocket in which, realistically, it's a forced lottery--one in which you will rarely if ever hit. And while all the promotion money go to the players where you are at, it is not that way everywhere. The two places I mainly play at take an extra dollar and call it a promotion dollar, but in fact, it does not go to the players at all. It's just extra rake and then they cut a very small amount back to players for promotion.

If it's not money going into your pocket right then, it's rake. And if you are talking about whether you play at either two places and which is better for a short term session then it becomes more important. That is because you have a lower chance at getting any promotional money back because your session is limited. Playing years at a casino gives you a better chance to get some promo money back in some form, but two sessions on a vacation at a place means you are just going to pay that promo money and get nothing in return. My math solution still is true, maybe even more if you play at a higher promotion taking place. It's immediate money you won't get back.

This is a very good breakdown in favor of choosing rake wisely. Thanks.

Yep, that was the point.

I think the players who proclaim a game "unbeatable" due to the rake do not consider themselves "casual players".

Then 2+2 has a lot of professionals who chime in with advice telling people to not play in a great many locales.

In the past month, I've heard people say that games in Chester, PA, Florida, certain parts of CA, and limit games under 5/10 are unbeatable and either mocking people playing at those venues or telling them that playing such games is foolish.

In the long-term they have a point. A person saying they want to check out a 2/4 LHE game probably isn't thinking long-term and they could be missing a chance to make money or even just building up their poker acumen and hopefully they won't be persuaded to not play based on what I believe to be a faulty reason for the short-term.

I don't care* about rake because I don't play to win money, I play for entertainment. Yes, I like to win money, and if I was a consistent loser I probably wouldn't play, but the money is not my main motivation.


*I'm sure there is a level of rake where I would care. I can't imagine playing with what I understand the rake to be in Australia.

I may be wrong but while your logic is right the exact $$ of savings is probably high for low limit games as all pots don't max out. Also, are there any casinos within a state that actually compete on rake? All the PA casinos rake the same (some have no BBJ) and I believe all AC casinos rake the same (although $1 less than PA).

I've alway though rake debates are useless unless you actually have the ability to shop rake.

That's one of the points I'm talking about as well.

If someone tells you not to play at venue X because the rake sucks, but the rake is the same at Venues Y and Z, the only advice they are giving is to not play at all.

Sort of like saying, "Dude, don't go to Hawaii because they have a 12% tourism tax", but telling you not to go to Vegas, the Caribbean, or other locales because they also have high tourism taxes.

Unbeatable is unbeatable. Saying you don't care about unbeatable rake in the short term because you might still profit is like playing blackjack or roulette for 6 hours, because you might still profit.

That's fine if your gambling is purely recreational, and you don't care if it's -EV. But, if you are looking for a +EV gamble, the rake absolutely matters regardless of how long you will be playing for.

Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races (Charlestown, WV) $6+$1!!!!

It's not really that extreme. In Sydney the $5/$5 game charges $10/hour PLUS 10% up to $10 rake. Some underground rooms charge 10% with no cap. Even winning in the short term can be hard in these games, assuming you're not playing 30-minute sessions.

I'm arguing that unbeatable is NOT unbeatable in a series of short-term sessions based solely on rake. Rake can be one factor in a game being unbeatable, but simply making a game selection choice on rake alone is absurd.

In a 2/5 game, would you avoid playing if the table is loose simply because the rake was poor? If so, you'd be giving up $$$ in all probability. And that is the argument for people who are casual players with an eye towards game selection. Casual players simply looking to gamble probably don't need to wory about rake, either unless the place next door offers a heck of a better deal.

I'm fairly convinced that a decent portion of people here would recommend never playing LHE under 5/10, and never play 1/2NL at a place with more than a $4 drop. If taht were the case, the poker player pool immediately drops in half.

Come to California. No rake, but a flat drop. $5 ($4 drop, $1 BBJ) is about the minimum that is dropped - regardless of the pot size. So - playing a 1/2 game, one limper, SB folds and BB checks will leave a pot = $0.

The worst is Commerce. In the 2/3 game, if the blinds decide to chop, $1 BBJ and $1 drop is taken. Sorry SB! Of course if the SB decides to call, the $5 + $1 drop will leave a pot of $0.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. If the rake is high enough, bad/loose players cannot make up for it. You're arguing that the game is beatable in the short term is nonsensical. It's like arguing keno is beatable in the short term. So what?

I'm arguing that the game is beatable in the short term for factors other than rake that are still in the players control. How is that even remotely applicable to Keno?

If players are told they can't beat limit games uder 5/10 or 1/2 NL games, then theoretically, shouldn't those games cease to exist since everyone is a loser?

So, drive an hour to the casino and turn around if the game isn't loose enough?

Because that is really the only "control" the player has.

And I will repeat, when most people give advice that a game is "unbeatable" in this forum

1) the one giving the advice does not consider himself a "casual player" (doesn't mean he is a 'professional')

2) the one giving the advice does not consider the person to whom he is giving the advice a "casual player"

See: Blackjack, Roulette, the Lottery

Add:

Also, I would advise anyone to avoid a 10% no-cap rake. Not because it is "unbeatable", but because it is robbery, even for the "casual player"

Why bitch about people who are making sound consumer decisions?

The more people decide to go to games with less rake, the more pressure on the cardrooms not to raise the rake. And there's nothing more greedy than a casino..

You know there is no difference between a bunch of short sessions, one long session or a 50 hour per week yearly grind in terms of EV right? Your expectancy to beat the game, assuming you are a winning player is x bb/hour. x goes down when rake goes up.

I know of games, in France for example, where rake is so painful that every single regular player is a loser at the end of the month. Yet they come back.