Wow, so multiple people are claiming that it's harder to win in o8 because the rake is higher due to split pots. Let's take things slowly then.

Suppose the max rake is say $10. Suppose we play two HU hands of equal size that are max raked in LHE and compare it to two hands in O8.

LHE we win one hand and lose one hand: we break even, but pay $10 rake

O8 we split twice: we break even, but pay $5+$5=$10 rake.

So with equal winrate, it doesn't matter if pots are split What am I missing?

You are not missing anything, imo. This is why high rake is accounted for in the starting ranges. Once you decide to play the hand, play it optimally to win the hand, regardless of rake.

I think this is in agreement with your logical statement quoted.

But like I asked you in my last post, doesn't this apply to every possible poker game? You might have a hand that is a slightly +ev open in a rake free (or time raked) environment, but need to fold it due to rake.

I am wondering this since at least three people ITT have claimed that rake is an issue specifically in split pot games, but nobody has provided any evidence so far.

Yes, of course.

Assuming your opponents are not drooling or drunk....

Assuming rake cap is not reached (micro or small stakes)....

Rake per hand, measured relative to your overall bb/100 winrate, is higher in all fixed limit games vs the pot-limit or no-limit versions of those same games. I know you are a high stakes player, but surely you can understand that competent micro/small stakes players at any fixed limit game will be fighting over less than a BB of EV and paying as much or more than that in rake. They should eliminate some starting hands from their ranges to account for it.

Next, Split games vs the Hi-only versions of those same games. This is not the same thing as “running it twice” in a high only game. In split pot games, the strategy revolves around splitting a majority of hands and getting a “scoop” is the only way to actually win anything. Repeatedly paying the house over and over for the chance to scoop a pot causes higher rake per hand. This is quite obvious, which is why I mentioned the “run it twice” dilemma which does NOT cause higher rake. Maybe that is what is tripping you up.

So...

Rake is particularly worse in fixed limit games, and slightly worse in split pot games, which makes FLO8 one of the worst games for rake.

So, since the EV of hands runs so closely together, a chunk (vague terminology) becomes unplayable, unless your opponent is medically diagnosed as mentally challenged.

Still not obvious to me. I have played a lot of LHE and LO8, and I have not noticed the average rake being higher in the latter (except in the very few rooms that have a different rake in the two games).

Prior to this last post, no one was discussing the difference between limit and pot limit games.

Are most of your pots heads up, or multi-way?

Are most of your opponents droolers or regs?

I understand that rake is higher in smaller games, yes. I have played 18k hands this year in games where bb is $1 or smaller (PL though). Without rakeback my ev-result is negative in this sample. This sample also shows that rake is higher in PLO than in PLO8, since the average pot size is bigger in former.

It's obvious that the higher the rake, the tighter you should play pre-flop.

This is where I think you are getting tripped up. If you are losing because you are repeatedly paying the house when trying to scoop, you are getting into spots that are not +ev due to rake. It has nothing to do with split pots. It's the same in any other game, equity is equity and rake is rake.

I think people are confused because when pots are split, they clearly see that getting it in with 50% equity on average might even be a losing proposition for them due to rake. It's exactly the same in other games, but it's way more hidden, since you either win or lose i.e. variance is blinding them.

Running it twice doesn't cause higher rake. Split pots don't cause higher rake either, for exactly the same reason. Bigger pots cause higher rake.

It can be true that FLO8 is one of the worst games for rake, but the reason must be that pots are bigger than in other FL games. I do not know if they are.

Most games have a rake cap. Once the cap is reached, larger pots make the rake smaller. AFAIK the rake cap is usually reached, isn't it?

Ahh, the crux of the question surfaces!

The option to "run it twice" happens after you have already decided to play a hand, actually the hand is over and you have locked up your EV. RIT is just a free way to lessen variance.

There is no "option" later in the hand to split the pot in FLO8, it is just part of your overall EV calculation, which should be a part of your preflop decision to play a hand or fold. Whatever makes a hand more likely to scoop makes the hand less likely to chop, and less likely to pay rake for nothing.

Also, we are discussing rake per hand, relative to overall winrate. When the rake cap is unreached in micro/small stakes, the size of the pot has no effect on rake whatsoever. You owe 5 percent of every bet to the house, no matter how big or small the pot is.

High rake has the biggest impact in short-handed games where gto dictates players open and defend widely. And players will frequently pay max rake per hand because split-pot games dictate going to the river often.

While rake impacts overall win rate, it can also be helpful to analyze the profitability of different positions.

Well, once the cap is reached, larger pots make the rake remain the same. Whether cap is reached or not depends on the house rules, size of the game etc. Robert_utk is definitely talking about micro stakes.

I'm afraid it doesn't.
I already explained the answer to this in my last post. Of course RIT doesn't change equity and of course making the pot bigger makes rake higher. There is no disagreement here. I don't understand what point you are trying to make talking about RIT. If you don't understand something, read my last post again, I can't explain it any better than that.

Yes, and? Isn't that what I've been saying all along, bigger pot, more rake? It's getting late here and I have no idea what point your post was supposed to make.

Well, I tried. Good night.

No idea what, though. Good night!

Amok, I agree with your posts about there not being a difference between one pot games and split games.

But big pots reduce the effect of the rake. The percent of each pot paid in rake almost always goes down as the pots get bigger.

That's great.
Definitely. I was trying to say that the amount of rake stays the same, but obviously that means that the rake percent goes down.

After reading all this I'm glad this point was clarified in the last couple of posts ITT as I was mumbling quite a lot of 'eh wtf's' at some of the posts

So why do all the players not agree to just play higher than 4/8?? I mean, if the rake is $6 a hand, why not play 10/20 or 15/30? Why do they all play 4/8? I don't get it. I love LO8B, but finding a game higher than 4/8 is almost impossible. The 15/30 in Houston used to be great, but it's been dwindling lately.

A. They don't think about the rake much, if at all.

B. They play bad and would lose more arty higher stakes, even if the rake was lower.

1. They just wanna play cards. It's purely entertainment or social for them.

2. They know they're gonna lose anyway and want to lose as little as slowly as possible.

3. They're on a "budget"; they don't have the bankroll.

4. They're new to O8 and are learning the game.

5. If there are >4 players to each flop, winning players know the game is beatable.

Because most live players, maybe 90% or more, are long-term losers. Let's say at $4/$8 with a $6 drop, someone is losing 0.5 BB/hour: that person is paying $4/hour for entertainment.

If he played the same game at $6/$12 stakes with the same $6 drop against the same lineup, he might lose only 0.33 BB/hour because the effect of the rake as a percentage of the average pot size would be reduced—but notice that he's still paying $4/hour for his entertainment.

However, in reality he won't play the higher-stakes game against the same lineup. Some of the worst players in the $4/$8 game won't have the bankroll (or cojones) to play bigger, so they'll drop out. And some better, more experienced players who couldn't be bothered to play $4/$8 will now sign up for the $6/$12. So our hypothetical player might actually start losing 0.6 BB/hour—which means he's now paying $7.20/hour for the privilege of playing this game. Ouch.

Not only that, but our long-term loser may not have the bankroll himself to sustain some of the big losses he's likely to experience in a $6/$12 game. If he only has $100 or $150 to gamble with in a given session, well, that's going to last a lot longer in a $4/$8 game.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Lucky Chances gets three or four full games of $4/$8 Omaha every Tuesday when they double the jackpot. Yet in 2011, when I played there regularly, they couldn't sustain a bigger game for very long. Some of the $4/$8 players would take a shot at $10/$20 (or, later, $6/$12), but when they lost, they'd drop back down to $4/$8 and stay there. Eventually, there weren't enough players to keep the $10/$20 game going, it converted to a $6/$12 game for a while, and then that one died too.

Those $4/$8 regs are actually quite rational. They know they can't beat a bigger game—or don't want to have to deal with the swings that come with trying—so they're chasing the jackpot and other promotions in the least expensive game they can find.

Fortunately, in the Bay Area, there are higher-stakes Omaha games in other rooms—and the winning players play in those games.

Don't you know anything? What they pay in rake, they make up on high hand and jackpot promotions...

Sadly our LO8 game in STL used to be a 5/T with a full kill, but it was reduced to $4/$8 with a half kill. Very disappointing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

4/8 is 100% beatable. Yes, rake size is super relative at this limit, because it does eat up a ton of equity, but it is still beatable.

There have been a ton a good comments on this thread imo. I particularly agree with someone saying that most people are playing 4/8 O8 to hit promotions. It's really developed into a very passive game that is SUPER soft. I've broke games MANY times because people were complaining about me raising preflop.

Btw, I don't mean to indict anyone, but I feel like good, competent O8 players love playing a game that includes a kill. Scared, losing players don't like the kill button.

I hate to be so blunt and polarizing... If you don't like the kill button, are you scared/playing outside of your bankroll?

I don't care for the kill, because it punishes good play. Good players play for a scoop, and then are penalized for doing so. In my experience it's generally the loose gambly players who like the kill.