I've never really understood the whole concept of "beating the rake"
Yes, it cuts into profits, but so does 40% income tax for the working regs.
Gambling winnings in Canada are not taxable (even for 'pros'). It's not about cutting into your profits, it's about whether or not the game is +EV. $14 rake @ 2/5 means the game is flatly unbeatable. You're paying approximately $50 an hour in rake.
When you're playing 2/5 you will often win $1000+ pots. So it may seem like $14 is negligible. But then again you will often lose $1000+ pots. At the end of the day, if you are REALLY GOOD AT POKER (top 5%) you might be able to beat your typical 2/5 game for 30-40 per hour at $5/ hand rake. Add another $37 in rake on top of that and you're suddenly risking a whole lot of money to have an hourly rate that is less than the pimply faced kid who works at McDonalds. Not to mention now the room is taking $500 / hr off the table instead of $100. This kills the action and drives players home broke fast.
If you want to be a sucker, be my guest, but I for one despise negative EV gambling and have nothing but contempt for people who engage in it.
I can't argue with how you present it, I just don't understand why rake couldn't be considered the gambling equivelant of tax. I do know a few PPC regs that are taking home more than enough to make it beatable.
I've heard a similar argument about online poker and how it's just destroying the poker economy. You have a low percentage of winning players and while the rake is much lower, the volume/rate bleeds money quickly to the site, removing dollars that are circulating in the game. At the end of the day losing players are quickly bled dry.
This money also never makes it to softer live fields.
$14 rake @ 2/5 means the game is flatly unbeatable. You're paying approximately $50 an hour in rake.
Say for argument sake, if all the players at the table where sitting with a full stack of $500 and they would reload back to $500 if they lost a pot, does this argument still have merit?
Yes. Actually what they buy in for is somewhat irrelevant to the question of 'can $14 rake be beatable'. Not entirely, of course, because you would prefer a very bad player buy in for $500 than $100 (although that also depends on other factors) but mostly because the question of 'can you beat $14 rake' depends on how much the other players are losing, or more accurately on the seriousness of the mistakes they are making (as well as your ability to understand and exploit their weaknesses). So, yes, $14 rake CAN be beaten by a good / great player against exceptionally poor opponents but that same player would win significantly more in a lower rake game. In no limit skill differences can be so tremendous that virtually any rake is beatable against opponents who are bad enough but in order to be playing a +EV game you need to face a tremendous parlay of factors and I for one do not enjoy sitting @ a table with 9 miserable dudes enough to do it unless they are paying me a tidy sum in EV to do so.
I've never really understood the whole concept of "beating the rake"
Yes, it cuts into profits, but so does 40% income tax for the working regs.
I would think that having a busy room with more game selection and opponents to choose from would be more desirable than try to squeeze a few bb/hr out of a short handed table of players doing the same.
Internet always wins the rake game, but 90% of players are out to have fun and try to win some money doing it. Of course the grinders scoff at this, but hey that's your paycheck so why not just roll with it.
Can anyone confirm that "Snakes" casino near Montreal has as Max $5/hand rake? I heard that other card rooms near Montreal are going to a $5/hand rake.
I can't argue with how you present it, I just don't understand why rake couldn't be considered the gambling equivelant of tax. I do know a few PPC regs that are taking home more than enough to make it beatable.
I've heard a similar argument about online poker and how it's just destroying the poker economy. You have a low percentage of winning players and while the rake is much lower, the volume/rate bleeds money quickly to the site, removing dollars that are circulating in the game. At the end of the day losing players are quickly bled dry.
This money also never makes it to softer live fields.
I'd rather pay $35,000/year in rake than $100,000/year in rake.
But if you profit more when paying the higher rake, then rake paid doesn't matter. Same concept as playing on a juicy site where I don't get rakeback vs a tougher site with rb. Don't know if this is the case with playground, but we can't really judge unless we play there.
I've played extensively @ casino montreal & casino hull. The players there aren't any more retarded than players in Ontario, and I presume this is the same player pool that playground draws from. I guess the games will be slightly softer, since anyone with a half a braincell recognizes the games can't be beat and doesn't play there.
No, all games at Playground are tougher than the Casino de Montreal. More regs and fewer random tourists. I don't know about elsewhere, but the online/live distinction is pretty much finished around here - most people regularly play live and online.
The lower rake at Snakes was a promotion and I'm pretty sure it's over. They don't run a lot of cash tables at any time though they have a pretty good tournament lineup.
Anyhow the Classic lineup is sick good, and the first weekend coincides with the grand opening of Stardust (a new room next door) which should also be decent, though opening promos haven't been announced yet.
I assume the lower buy-in events will be the same as the daily tournaments, which means they'll likely finish up at around 2:30 or so. Perhaps a bit later because people will be less likely to want to make deals at the ft.
The $10K tournament at Playground starts today. People are expecting about 30-35 players but maybe up to 40 players. I'll be there playing in the $60 (LOL) so I'll report anything interesting.
"@CanadaPoker: Playground Poker 10k High Roller has just kicked off! 7 players at the table, winner takes all. Mike McDonald & JP Piquette playing."
I hate to admit it, but I don't think the 5-10k look like they will do well in Canada unless they brand with WPT or WSOP. Fallsview does ok. BC not impressed by Numbers, Alberta not working either. ..
Yeah it ended up being 9 total. Word around the room is that 20 people cancelled last week - and it seems clear now that they would have had to have at least 35 locked-in players - but if they had, it might have grown quickly.
It was a SICK 9 players. JP Piquette, who won, also won the $2.2K last week for over $100K in winnings last week! Timex was there, as were Samuel Chartier and Scott Montgomery. Add to that some local high-stakes cash players and really good local tourney player Arthur W who cashed in last year's WSOP Main event.
I'd like to think this could work next year, but the problem with this size of tournament is always getting enough money into the overall ecosystem. That means satellites galore, and preferably an online tie-in. The problem is that Pokerstars is so dominant that they might be the only reasonable option, and I doubt they'd be interested. I guess Party or 888 could be an alternative, but if players aren't there...
There are other things like the monthly TLB and stuff, but when you dig in to the numbers there isn't really a clear way to add enough seats that way that would create a secondary market for tickets - so it's tough to get to the 30 or so required to open the floodgates that might be operating.
Yeah it ended up being 9 total. Word around the room is that 20 people cancelled last week - and it seems clear now that they would have had to have at least 35 locked-in players - but if they had, it might have grown quickly.
It was a SICK 9 players. JP Piquette, who won, also won the $2.2K last week for over $100K in winnings last week! Timex was there, as were Samuel Chartier and Scott Montgomery. Add to that some local high-stakes cash players and really good local tourney player Arthur W who cashed in last year's WSOP Main event.
I'd like to think this could work next year, but the problem with this size of tournament is always getting enough money into the overall ecosystem. That means satellites galore, and preferably an online tie-in. The problem is that Pokerstars is so dominant that they might be the only reasonable option, and I doubt they'd be interested. I guess Party or 888 could be an alternative, but if players aren't there...
There are other things like the monthly TLB and stuff, but when you dig in to the numbers there isn't really a clear way to add enough seats that way that would create a secondary market for tickets - so it's tough to get to the 30 or so required to open the floodgates that might be operating.
And since Playground is already aligned with Poker JK who is their Marketing as well as for 888 in Canada, Stars most likely won't be an option on that end.
And even though they are all connected via Cookie who is obviously tight with Party, again 888 is most likely the only option.
WPT comes back to Canada or forget 10ks. That's pretty much the scoop. WPT won't likely be coming back to Canada as they would want to satellite online and no casino save Riverock would even entertain that, unless when Ontario does set up with a 3rd party for their online, in which case Fallsview could actually happen.
Comments
Gambling winnings in Canada are not taxable (even for 'pros'). It's not about cutting into your profits, it's about whether or not the game is +EV. $14 rake @ 2/5 means the game is flatly unbeatable. You're paying approximately $50 an hour in rake.
When you're playing 2/5 you will often win $1000+ pots. So it may seem like $14 is negligible. But then again you will often lose $1000+ pots. At the end of the day, if you are REALLY GOOD AT POKER (top 5%) you might be able to beat your typical 2/5 game for 30-40 per hour at $5/ hand rake. Add another $37 in rake on top of that and you're suddenly risking a whole lot of money to have an hourly rate that is less than the pimply faced kid who works at McDonalds. Not to mention now the room is taking $500 / hr off the table instead of $100. This kills the action and drives players home broke fast.
If you want to be a sucker, be my guest, but I for one despise negative EV gambling and have nothing but contempt for people who engage in it.
I've heard a similar argument about online poker and how it's just destroying the poker economy. You have a low percentage of winning players and while the rake is much lower, the volume/rate bleeds money quickly to the site, removing dollars that are circulating in the game. At the end of the day losing players are quickly bled dry.
This money also never makes it to softer live fields.
Say for argument sake, if all the players at the table where sitting with a full stack of $500 and they would reload back to $500 if they lost a pot, does this argument still have merit?
Can anyone confirm that "Snakes" casino near Montreal has as Max $5/hand rake? I heard that other card rooms near Montreal are going to a $5/hand rake.
I'd rather pay $35,000/year in rake than $100,000/year in rake.
The lower rake at Snakes was a promotion and I'm pretty sure it's over. They don't run a lot of cash tables at any time though they have a pretty good tournament lineup.
Anyhow the Classic lineup is sick good, and the first weekend coincides with the grand opening of Stardust (a new room next door) which should also be decent, though opening promos haven't been announced yet.
OP was schedule.
Yes I noticed that - I just wanted to add the pretty formatted version as an alternative to consult.
Flights, Airfare, Airline Tickets, Car Rentals, Train Tickets and More | Travelzoo Canada
"@CanadaPoker: Playground Poker 10k High Roller has just kicked off! 7 players at the table, winner takes all. Mike McDonald & JP Piquette playing."
I hate to admit it, but I don't think the 5-10k look like they will do well in Canada unless they brand with WPT or WSOP. Fallsview does ok. BC not impressed by Numbers, Alberta not working either. ..
It was a SICK 9 players. JP Piquette, who won, also won the $2.2K last week for over $100K in winnings last week! Timex was there, as were Samuel Chartier and Scott Montgomery. Add to that some local high-stakes cash players and really good local tourney player Arthur W who cashed in last year's WSOP Main event.
I'd like to think this could work next year, but the problem with this size of tournament is always getting enough money into the overall ecosystem. That means satellites galore, and preferably an online tie-in. The problem is that Pokerstars is so dominant that they might be the only reasonable option, and I doubt they'd be interested. I guess Party or 888 could be an alternative, but if players aren't there...
There are other things like the monthly TLB and stuff, but when you dig in to the numbers there isn't really a clear way to add enough seats that way that would create a secondary market for tickets - so it's tough to get to the 30 or so required to open the floodgates that might be operating.
And since Playground is already aligned with Poker JK who is their Marketing as well as for 888 in Canada, Stars most likely won't be an option on that end.
And even though they are all connected via Cookie who is obviously tight with Party, again 888 is most likely the only option.
WPT comes back to Canada or forget 10ks. That's pretty much the scoop. WPT won't likely be coming back to Canada as they would want to satellite online and no casino save Riverock would even entertain that, unless when Ontario does set up with a 3rd party for their online, in which case Fallsview could actually happen.