Is anyone able to beat the rake on 2/5 Limit at Brantford Longterm?
Hi,
I'm just wondering if anyone is able to beat the rake at 2/5 Limit in Brantford longterm?
Most pots are capped so.
10% $5 means usually 1 Big blind comes off the table every hand so that's 30 Big blinds an hour or 100 Big blinds every 100 hands or so.
If you win 6% of hands that still means 6bb/100 is the rake you're paying...
Yuck..
Anyone able to beat a 6bb /100 hand rake long term must have mad skills.
What do you think about the 5/10 Limit game there?
I'm just wondering if anyone is able to beat the rake at 2/5 Limit in Brantford longterm?
Most pots are capped so.
10% $5 means usually 1 Big blind comes off the table every hand so that's 30 Big blinds an hour or 100 Big blinds every 100 hands or so.
If you win 6% of hands that still means 6bb/100 is the rake you're paying...
Yuck..
Anyone able to beat a 6bb /100 hand rake long term must have mad skills.
What do you think about the 5/10 Limit game there?
Comments
It is a common fallacy to believe that the winner of the hand "pays the rake". All players who are dealt into a hand lose some portion of their EV to the rake, regardless of whether or not they end up winning that particular hand.
That the winner pays the rake for the hand is the ultimate in results-based poker thinking.
Same calculation shows that the average rake per player is $50 per 100 hands, or 5 big bets per 100 hands. Of course, pots are even more likely (even in somewhat tight games) to reach $50 in a 5-10 game compared to a 2-4 game.
Tough to beat, but certainly not impossible. The 5-10 game was far more beatable (or less unbeatable) before 2-5 was offered, being the lowest available limit at that time.
ScottyZ
Thanks for your input ScottyZ
I was making a few assumptions to show that... the rake sucks so bad it's unbeatable in 2/5 ... the other players are terrible but I think the game is unbeatable, The average player is dropping 10bb/100 in rake plus 2bb/100 in tips.
So my conclusion is ; Don't play 2/5 with the super high Brantford Rake, It's unbeatable.
Is anyone out there able to beat 2/5 at brantford?
I wanted to calculate the effect of the rake versus paying a time charge one time. It was very simple. Basically something like this: I kept two piles, my buy-in on the left and my winnings on the right. I didn't use any of my winnings until my buyin was gone. I just took a flat 10% of my bets over the time period.
Anyways I figured out I paid about $6/hr in rake - just over 1 BB/hr, my cards admittedly sucked that day. I will do it again next time. You would have to be pretty loose to be spending 3.33 BB/hr (rough est. of 33.3 hands played per hour) in rake. 7 hands played per hour would be about 21% of all hands played, of that you would see maybe 2 or 3 to the river.
nah, it's not a fallacy at all. tighter players play less rake. that's why it makes sense to play tighter in a raked game than in a time charge game, if all else is equal.
This is true in general.
Agreed.
However, you are charged rake every single time1 that you place money into the pot, including the pots you do not end up winning.
The winner of the pot does not "pay the rake"--- every active player who put money into the pot in a hand has contributed to the rake for that hand. Not understanding the latter is the "winner pays the rake" fallacy.
Earlier in the thread, moose04 gives an excellent practical example of a good way estimate the rake you pay during a session.2
Tighter players (generally) pay less rake not because they win less pots, but because they put less money into the pot (on average) per orbit than the average player.
However, "tight" might not even be enough to give you the whole story. A tight but super-aggressive player might end up paying more (average) rake than a looser, extremely passive player. Why? He may end up putting more money into the pot on average per orbit. It is possible for a tight but super-aggressive player to win a lower percentage pots (on average) than a loose, super-passive player, and still pay more rake.
ScottyZ
1Up to the point where the maximum rake for the hand has already been taken.
2In a game where the maximum rake is not reached too often.
Anyone want to set the over/under per hr.
I'll likely play for about 7 hrs.
Last week I played loosey-goosey... tomorrow I will tighten up (a little), as I have to keep a watch out for the STE4ODITD.
With all these footnotes I feel I am reading SSHE all over again.
Good point though. My wife is off next week so next week is poker week! What I will do then is start using my winnings pile once the pot reaches $50. Then I will know exactly how much I pay in rake. It will also force me to track the pot sizes carefully.
One thing you should do is always count your pots to make sure they are raking properly. I have found that some dealers are tight and occasionally overrake the pot. Some dealers are loose and sometimes don't rake enough.
I was dealt 147 hands in just over 5 hours
Tracking all the money that I put in a pot up until the pot was $50... I paid $40.55 in rake
saw flop:
2/15 from SB
9/15 from BB
40/127 from elsewhere
((40.55/3)/147)*100
So you're paying 9.2 Big blinds per 100 hands .... or 4.6 Pokertracker big blinds ( PTBB) per 100 hands
Sounds tough to beat the rake.
// edited : corrected calculations based on the wise comment below.
1. MickeyHoldem's rake stats are from a B&M $1/$3 NL cash game. Furthermore, I believe the house drop at this game includes both a jackpot drop and rake, so I'm not sure if MH is talking about the rake only, or the rake + jackpot total. I don't know what the house take is on the jackpot is, but (if non-zero) that should also be factored in as lost EV.
2. In discussing rates per 100 hands, BB always stands for big bets, not big blinds. In a NL games, the convention is that the "BB" is twice the big blind.
ScottyZ
Not in general, but the underlying point that beating low-limit is more difficult than most people think is probably valid.
Players at low limits are generally bad enough to compensate for the rake. However, it depends on the exact rake structure. $2-$4 online is going to be beatable by good players. The $2-$5 at Brantford has a much tougher rake structure, but the Gomer factor is through the roof. The $1-$3, a bit of a bizzare limit structure, at Turning Stone with $3 rake (exactly $3, not $3 max) on pots over $10 is getting pretty close to being an unbeatable house drop, if not actually so.
Depends what limit.
If I remember the rake structures correctly, the $5-$10 was pretty close in terms of the CNE (5%, $7.50 max) and Brantford (10%, $5 max). The $10-$20 house drop at the CNE (I can't remember) was probably worse than Brantford's relatively reasonable house drop ($10 per hour time charge).
I don't believe the CNE offered $2-$5.
ScottyZ
I'm going to hijack my own thread and talk about the rake at the 1/2 NL at Seneca.
The rake is $3 on the flop and a dollar at $40.
Amazing that it's so high...
But even more unbeliveable ... people limp preflop, the small blind completes and then the $10 to $6 pot is raked $3 ...
How about the stellar play by the Button you usually see: Fold to the button who limps, SB completes and BB checks. $6 in pot..flop hits, rake is $3, pot is $3. SB checks, BB checks, Button bets (any amount). SB folds. BB folds. Button wins pot. Tips $1.!! LOL
IT'S NO LIMIT PEOPLE -- RAISE!!!
Pokerkid1215
I gots to work on Monday night. Are you coming alone or with a crew of Porters?
Pokerkid1215