Ongame is doing it like OP proposes.

In order for this post to make sense, we must first agree that the winner of the pot is in all actuality the only player in a pot that is affected by the rake in that single pot.

If you win a $500 pot at 5% rake you pay $25.
If you win 10 pots of $50 each at 5% rake you pay $2.50 a hand in rake, which is still $25 in total rake.

The point that starvingwriter82 and others are trying to make is that it does not matter the size of any individual pot. If you win the same amount of money spread out over more hands, you will still end up paying the exact same amount of rake.

The other argument is due to the larger pots, you will pay rake faster. Note that faster does not mean higher. I will leave the example creation to someone else (not that there haven't been enough good examples already ITT), but you will see that even though you end up paying a higher $$ amount (NOT a higher %) over multiple hands, you will have received a higher amount of profit.

[QUOTE=krazykarter;31322947]

The point that starvingwriter82 and others are trying to make is that it does not matter the size of any individual pot. If you win the same amount of money spread out over more hands, you will still end up paying the exact same amount of rake.



But this point is not exactly true is it? The rake cap plays a part.Take this example.

Player wins 10 pots of $500 each rake is capped at $3 = $30 rake

Player wins 100 pots of $50 each rake is 5% so $2.50 = $250 rake

Both players win $5000 in total but one pays $220 more in rake.

Surely playing higher stakes is far better than bloating the pots at lower stakes and creating more overall rake faster.

Yeah, this connects to the issue of who actually pays the rake. I've been in the (seemingly) minority and think winner pays all is wrong. For exactly the reasons raised here. Since the rake taken (on all streets) effects the bet sizes then clearly the rake payed on each street is important and thus it's payed by whoever bets. Not just by the winner.

Moving up stakes can make a winning player a breakeven player.

If this rake change were to occur wouldn't more rake caps be hit?? Thus effectively lowering ones rake paid.

Would imagine the change on that score would be minimal expect for a few small to medium stakes. But yes in theory overall rake paid percentages possibly would come down marginally.

However I really do think this topic is somewhat marginal compaired to the main argument at present and that is reducing overall rake taken and reducing rake caps. All this does is move money from bad players to good ones slightly quicker.

[QUOTE=TrickyTree;31324835] Actually this is just an argument for playing bigger pots regardless of stake.


If you don't hit the rake cap, winning a few big pots or a lot of small ones is the same amount of rake paid.

If you do hit the rake cap, winning the bigger pots means you pay less.

So, if there's no difference in small pots but some positive difference in big pots, the obvious choice is choosing the rake method that creates larger pots.

At worst, this is a 0 EV change. At best, it's very slightly +EV. The people panicking that this would be a horrible change have totally gone barking up the wrong tree on this one.

[QUOTE=starvingwriter82;313274

So, if there's no difference in small pots but some positive difference in big pots, the obvious choice is choosing the rake method that creates larger pots.


But there is a difference in the small pots. Rake is paid 7% faster under this system. Stars gets the rake 7% faster. Bad players bust 7% faster.

Not only that this system assumes you win every pot that is 7% bigger. If you win 51% of them and lose the other 49% then you are paying an awful lot more rake to win what would be in effect quite a small amount more.

Really is this whole argument anything other than small beer?

Under the new system, If rake is being paid 7% faster and bad players are losing 7% faster, you are also winning 7% faster.

Are you seriously telling me you would rather win a $10 pot and pay 0.50 rake, instead of winning an $11 pot and payng 0.55 rake?

If so, doesn't that make a $9 pot better than a $10 one, a $7 pot better than a $6 one, a $1 pot better than a $2, etc.?

Ultimately folding every hand pre so that all your pots are $0 and you only pay rake on your folded blinds when other players see a flop is optimal and guarantees the lowest possible rake paid.

[QUOTE=TrickyTree;31327260]But there is a difference in the small pots. Rake is paid 7% faster under this system. Stars gets the rake 7% faster. Bad players bust 7% faster.

Not only that this system assumes you win every pot that is 7% bigger. If you win 51% of them and lose the other 49% then you are paying an awful lot more rake to win what would be in effect quite a small amount more.

Really is this whole argument anything other than small beer? QUOTE]

Good players win money from bad players.
The longer it takes Pokerstars makes money.
Its something called rake.

Tricky: My example was assuming the rake cap was not being met. As for moving up in limits, that requires a much larger bankroll than simply increasing the largest of pots by 10-20xBB. That's just not gonna happen for those of us that aren't rolled for the next limits.

Player 1 bets $1, Player B calls the $1. Assuming no other action, at 5% rake, the pot is $1.90. If Player A wins the pot, he gains 90 cents of the $1 called by Player B. On the other hand, Player B, whom lost the pot, loses his entire $1. So while B's $1 contributed to the rake taken, they are not actually affected as they lost no money besides the $1 to call the bet, whereas Player A was forced to forfeit 5% of the pot.

In that case it seems a little weird to send a bunch of winners to the Isle of Man and pretend that they represent 'all players'
Unless the losers like losing as quickly as possible also

Interesting that in Cakes PLO you are allowed to bet the size of the pot + the rake and the pot button does just that.

Which would you rather play: A game you are currently losing that you could get good enough at to win, or a game you are currently losing that only the house wins?

The situation should self-correct of course. Some players feel it's not worth their time anymore, the games improve for the rest.
The more winning regs leave Stars the better the games get. If the leavers are finding greener pastures elsewhere then everybody wins

This is a band-aid for the real problems. Fish are already losing too fast at NLHE/PLO. Your winrate will increase, Stars will gather rake faster, and the fish will lose even FASTER.

The suggestion is the exact OPPOSITE of everything you guys (rake kills) have been fighting for. Focus on the fish and the rake, not yourselves.

losers are just going to lose whatever they deposited , but with this change a bit more goes to the winners and a bit less to the rake.

The skill/luck ratio moves a bit towards skill and even losers will want that since they often complain about bad luck

I think most fish will like being able to bet a bit more (in PL games)

Umm, 'Self-correcting' doesn't necessarily imply a good thing for the ecosystem just like something being natural doesn't imply its good for you.

Player numbers are dwindling, more and more players are losing interest players are now beginning to realising the sites are just taking all the money as winrates plummet due to the natural progression of skill level increasing and the backlash has started. Nothing the sites do except decreasing the rake will stave off the inevitable, and stars clearly want to hang on to their huge profit margins as long as possible, but that cash cow is coming to an end. Either they make huge margins off an every decreasing number of players, or they take smaller margins from a large number of players. Stars are trying to have their cake and eat it for as long as possible taking huge margins and calling the players bluff that they won't leave, and they are right, most 2+2'ers just fold and jump right back on the SNE treadmill.

In a game where huge rake means you need to have a massive skill advantage over your opponents to win, do the games really get better if a handful of average players stop playing? Think about it...

If stars jacked the rake up to 20% the system would self-correct to an ecosystem of a few completely clueless fish with deep pockets, and extremely good regs who bumhunt exclusively and can beat that rake.

Is this better for the few regs who can still exist? Complaints in the high stakes threads suggest no and rake there is already low, yet the regs won't play each other and bumhunt/sitout wars are rife.
This is coming soon to MSNL

I'm pretty sure this idea would do nothing but hurt 100% of the players. Just becasue the overall pot sizes are bigger doesnt mean winrates will be bigger. You have to remember that the pots you lose will now also be bigger. Even if you somehow argued that you win more pots than you lose blah blah blah, it would make no difference. at the end of the day, the sites taking more rake off the tbales is gonna kill everyone.

strongly oppose

Oh yes, the ecosystem. Every cent of which depends on a torrent of freshly deposited money without which winners loyalty may be a little suspect.
Of course they don't get to be in on the meeting between Stars and 2+2ers about how to divide their mug money. They only pay for the whole thing.
This moving up and down stuff I've been reading seems a little overblown also. Winners seem to stick at micro and small stakes for hundreds of thousands of hands, making waaaay more than they need to move up. Stars would mainly be giving them more money to cash out.

I can't see why a rake decrease wouldn't also be self-correcting. These games are widely accessible and there is information aplenty on how to play.

It must be nice to have the choice at least the best of luck to them.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

I know that Pokerstars loves imitating Winamax. The latter takes the rake at the end of the pot as OP suggested (It's quite common elsewhere too!)

So, Pokerstars seems to hate winning poker players. They are still using their nonsensical rake method.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that It hurts winning poker players big time to take the rake before the end of the pot. Pot geometry is very important in poker.

Too complicated, being zero possibility anyone will understand it. I stopped reading after couple of lines when it read something about it going to 27x, lol.

What if u would just play with euros with 3e or so cap and all else same. U would pay more rake and win more money, but still humanly impossible to see if that is the case, and even if they dropped the rake to dollar levels, out of theory, where u can win much more money but with much lower rake, no one still plays the euro tables, lol.

Just keep things as simple as possible, make the rake maximum 5% and cap 3e or so. Give some cheese vip to keep the mice running, lol.

Come out with a poker room like that and plant it somewhere no one knows anything about, rake the micros to lows to death, 5% plus rake, races w 2% rb value, no rb, no cashout, lol. Even rake free sites have had less success than that, lol.

Luckily rake levels might be monitored by ex stars, to keep them relative to win rates, and it was somewhat a success at plo though not sure of how much really for many reasons, while limit poker rake is still too high for moving up to where no games run, lol.

But at this time, combined to some half rake sites that i play during times i always lose at stars, this old stars is the best there is, but even the last serious place standing, stars, got sold, further countries banned, and cant wait to see the next changes, knowing much of what to expect. Half rake sites either balanced to lol like ipoker and no one sees it, or are crappy betas or and cheat sport bonus, so i am not all expecting the rake changes really to change anything, lol, stars being 50 to 66% of my final nail, the other part on the edge of death also, lol.

How about rake free games, as they should be, with some fair cuts to operators and tax money given to us instead as in other sports, and sponsored things like in sports and chess, but no, not in the poker world, lol, millions of years ahead of major time, heh.

The best deal at this time are the stars euro games, but they wont build up any more than rake free and half rake sites build up. But in reality it will never happen, leaving the case to new stars if they keep it in the old balance as games get tougher and pools smaller. The 2nd day now i am seriously thinking a backup site or sites in case stars goes under, in one way or the other, lol.

+1

OP = lolbad suggestion