Every penny that goes in preflop is multiplied by up to 27x by the river given 3 up to pot size bets. When the rake is immediately grabbed out of the pot on each street that results in smaller pot sizes being played especially given many, if not the majority of people, are using auto-bet sizing. This is bad for the site since it means less net rake gets taken from the pot and it's bad for the players since the larger pots we are playing are made artificially smaller.

So for instance let's look at $100NL game under 5% per street vs 5% at the end:

Raked per street:
Pre: SB raises $3 BB calls $2.
Flop: ($6 - $0.30 = $5.70) SB pots. BB calls.
Turn: ($17.1 - $0.57 = $16.53) SB pots. BB calls.
River: ($49.59 - $1.65) = $47.94) SB pots. BB folds.
Total rake = 1.65 + 0.57 + 0.3 = $2.52
Final pot size = $47.94

Raked at the end:
Pre: SB raises $3 BB calls $2.
Flop: ($6) SB pots. BB calls.
Turn: ($18) SB pots. BB calls.
River: ($54) SB pots. BB folds.
Total rake = 54 * 0.05 = $2.70
Final pot size = 54 - 2.7 = $51.30

Exact same hand, exact same action but the site gets to rake nearly 7% more, the players get to play a hand without really awkward pot sizes and they also get to play a pot that is somewhat larger which should increase earn rates in the long run. The theory here is that player earn rates would increase while site rake would also increase but at a slightly lesser rate. As many players have seen their VPP drop due to recent changes from the sites, and their bb/100 drop due to not so recent changes in the games - this seems to be a way to leave all parties very satisfied.

Thoughts?

The site could continue to display the running amount that will be raked, much like it already does.

Thanks Do it Right. I have fallen in love with your idea; it's the best idea I have ever seen.

strong support,

Mainly because it looks cleaner.
iirc @ FT if you potted , the rake for that street was included in the potbet.

Also there wont be rounding to the nearest cent on three occasions so it would be a more true true percentage rake. This could make a difference at the micros.

A drawback for Stars is that it takes away an argument for WC intead of WTA since it will be more clear that only the winner pays rake

You should have chosen a better title, and your numbers are quite hard to understand.

Let's say I'm playing a hand at $0.1/$0.25. I raise UTG to 3x and the button calls and both
the blinds fold. Pot on flop = 1.85 dollars .Then I'll bet the pot on every street.


Pokerstars's method:

Final pot size/ Rake/ Pot won by the winner
45.59 / 2.05/ 43.54


Method in which the rake is taken at the end of the pot:

Final pot size/ Rake/ Pot won by the winner/ Extra profit
49.95/ 2.25/ 47.7/ 4.16 dollars


Conclusion:
We can see that this new method makes me earn €4.16 dollars more in just 1 hand.
It's an extraordinary 16.64 big blinds profit (4.16/0.25=16.64).

I might have made a small mistake, but the point is that taking the rake at the end of the pot should improve a winning player's winrate.

I don't see the point, you're making the point that the players and the site earn more when more money enters the pot, what's the big deal here? The effect is created by the pot bets being bigger due to no rake, hence the same can be achieved by simply slightly overbetting the pot. The site doesn't need to change anything for this to be possible. ;-O (Save for PLO)

Am I misunderstanding something?

So you want us to support an idea that gives the site 7% MORE rake. Has the world gone completely MAD? Of course it wont increase winrates. Individually it might but overall win rates will drop as the rake increases. Come on think about it.

Yeah overbetting is not the same at all. Under this system any bet size you want to make, half pot, pot, overbet - will all result in larger pots by the river than they do when raked street by street. This means you will be earning more money and so will the site.

This basically.

It would only be a good idea if a players win rate was greater than the rake rate.

This is not true for the majority of the stakes and basically all that happens is the site takes more money out of the poker economy. They take far too much already.

Definitely opposed.

What would happen if you doubled the size of every single pot you played, but otherwise everything else - the players, the hands, the bets - stayed the same? Your win rate would obviously increase by slightly less than double. You'd pay a bit more rake, at least assuming you didn't previously hit the cap every hand, so you'd earn a bit less than double but you'd be earning very close to 100% more.

This change does exactly that but on a somewhat smaller scale. Depending on the stakes and bet sizes, it would increase many pots by upwards of 10%. That is good for everybody.

I hope people will consider this a bit more before voting. I agree this is hugely counter intuitive that players and the site can both make more money, which is why I stated paradoxical in the thread title.

Then you may as well just play the next stake level up. All this does is take the money out of the poker economy faster than before and making losing players bust quicker.

The bigger the pots , the more often the rake is capped , the lesser rakepressure in % of pot !

Except it still won't hit the caps in micro games.

Again the idea is only good if the players win rate is higher than the rake rate.

For the overraked micros and SSNL games (which is source of the problems poker is facing) very very few if any players have win rates above the rake rate.

This change would basically create more action. Pots would be bigger and more money would be changing hands. You're right that in the long run losing players would increase their loss rates, but in the short run they'd be even more likely to go on big heaters, take shots at higher stakes, etc. When they did win pots they'd be larger, and there would also - as mentioned - be less pressure from rake in the pots since more hands would be hitting the caps more frequently. Losing slightly more in the long run for greater chances of going on even more big heaters, and larger ones, in the short run? I'm pretty sure that sounds like a good thing for recreationals.

I really do think this is one of those rare times that something is win-win for everybody.

It comes down to a per-pot basis here. If your edge in any given pot is greater than 4.5% you'd benefit under this change regardless of whether or not the rake cap is hit.

To put that 4.5% into poker terms, we all call AK vs QQ a flip. But queens has a greater than 6% edge. So in any given pot if you have an edge similar or greater to the one QQ does vs AK all-in-pre then this change would benefit you.

Please, stop doing your research by proclamation rather than investigation.

I proved than you can win up to 16 bb per hand playing just 1 hand.

I don't care about paying more rake because the winrate would more than make up for that.
I prefer to pay 20 cents more and win a $49.95 pot than to pay 20 cents less and win a $43.54 pot.

ipoker does this. i dont like it, i prefer transparency

If it makes the numbers clearer, I can see some advantage in it.

Apart from that it's pretty neutral IMO. It will tend to make pots a little bit bigger at any given stake, so players will win or lose slightly faster than they currently do. But in the longer term this will be substantially adjusted away as players on the margin of moving up or down tend to move to / stay on the lower stake.

if they the pot size like this : POT: $20,- (rake: $0.90)

So the preraked pot and the rake if the hand ends there. Then that would be MORE transparent .

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Would the current system of displaying the amount that will be raked from the pot, updated every street, not be transparent?

You proved you can win up to 16bb per hand play and winning ONE hand? Whats this all about? Surely you can win 100bbs and more by winning just the one hand.

And as for your other statement well thats just rediculous and sums up a lot of posters on here. You would sooner pay a little more to win a little more? Generally thats always been the case until you reach the rake CAP. If you want to play bigger pots just play bigger stakes why do you need to bloat pots at smaller stakes and then make the money leave the poker economy 7% faster than it is now?

This is a rediculous arguement really. What needs to happen is NOT bigger pots and more rake. Its smaller rake CAPs!!!!!!!!!! That way pots can be however big you want them to be whilst the overall rake is lower. This increases win rates as players keep MORE of each pot. All you are hoping for is the money to be churned over faster and for pokerstars to get their hands on their share FASTER than they are now.

The whole thing is lunacy.

You have made this argument more than once. In the example shown, the rake actually decreased, and this proposal would be rake-neutral at the worst.

I agree. But what you are forgetting is that in UNCAPPED pots the rake will leave the table 7% FASTER than before due to the increase in pot sizes. More pots will hit the cap than before. Fish will bust faster. Only the top regs will actually benefit from small increases in win rates. Stars gets their cut 7% faster than they currently are. The health of the games deteriorates.

I will say it again.......................RAKE CAPS NEED CUTTING. Then you can play as big a pot as you want without paying more rake. Why do you actually want to pay more rake overall? It makes no sence whatsoever.

I will just be blunt. You guys for this are idiots.

Sorry to say. You are asking to raise the rake. You keep talking about betting pot etc etc

Why not just bet 110% pot now. You 'WOULD' make more money.

I mean get real here. Stop asking to be raked more. STOP!

I don't think it's a good idea at all. You don't expect to win all the hands, right ?

If your math is correct every hand gets you a 7% increase, while every hand lost costs 7% more. In the meantime Stars will rake 7.14% more out of every one of those hands.

So the vast majority of players (losers) will lose even faster than they do, a minority (winners) will win faster and Stars wins every time.

Not to mention it's artificial to bet on every street considering money that aren't actually there anyway (rake is certain to be taken out, no matter what).

Definitely Strongly Oppose