Ring Rake vs Tourney

I'm a tourney guy. But on occasion foray into ring because some very well respected folks say it is more profitable.

I used to be able to say straight faced that I sucked at ring games. Truth seldom requires a wink. Since July 1 that seems to no longer be the case, but by no means am I gonna spend a lot of time in the ring yet.

Yesterday, while 3 tabling I missed being profitable over maybe 400 hands by one hand in particular, where the pot ended up being split, but the rake was enormous. It ended up huge because I had the nut straight, and was trying to stack the villain, who also had the nut straight.

In a tourney, this situation is a large exciting non event, wasting only time, in ring this was costly. Total rake on that hand was in the $2.50 range!

That was NLHE, in Omaha the rakes can be devastating (imo). Especially when it is O8 and there are split pots.

Possibly the largest issue with rake is how it screws up odds calculations. Few are going to factor in a rake situation when determining a raise or a call, yet over time it becomes a critical factor.

So I'm looking for some 'handle' that will help me understand and factor in rake.

The tourney equivalent of the (usually) 10% is a one time fee paid up front win or lose, and from that POV, the tourney fee is a much better deal than a 5% (or in some cases 10%) rake off the top of (almost) every pot.

Discuss;

I have a theory that ring games are fixed to give lots of people good hands so the pots are bigger, hence the rake will be a lot bigger. I try and play ring games, but I don't have much luck with them. The tournaments seem to be a little more reasonable to play!

Oh my Lord!


Rake can be a huge problem at lower limits. I believe FT's rake is hideous for the micro players. Obviously the higher the limits you go the rake gets capped, therefore it's not as big %age wise of the final pot. But yes, I suppose you have to factor in the rake in your calculations when making a decision on a draw etc.

I think when all said and done, your average SnG player usually gets punished more in rake that your avg cash player.

This makes me feel stupid. I just don't think about it much. And I specialize in ring games. I mean.. I know it's there and I sure hate to see a gigantic pot be split in the end, since I know then the only winner is the house.

But at pokerstars they take the rake out as you play... so If I am betting on a $5 pot there's $0.25 sittin up there over that little virtual chiptoilet. I am betting on the $5 not the $5.25.

But here's some things to think about.

In a ring game I only an getting my earnings bit into by the rake if... I... AM... earning. If I'm losing... well I spose I could look at the fact that some of my chips go down that little hole... but what do I care where the chips i LOST go?

In a tourney I pay 10% (or whatever) nomatter if I win or lose.

In a tourney the size of the field makes a big difference. A $10 entry fee in a tourney where i win 2k is pretty sweet. but how many $10s did I have to spend to get that 2k?

For me... the way I see it... I pay %5 (or so) of my winnings to pokerstars for the privilege of playing in a safe reliable place.

So be it.

For sure rake is part and parcel of the game, and most regular players accept it. The amount you pay over a year though can make you big time. For example, this year I expect to pay in the region of >$20k in rake. That's mainly playing 25nl - 100nl cash games. Getting some sort of rakeback deal (or FPP's) is absolutely essential for players who play regularly. If I can get upto a 1/3rd of the rake I've paid back into my account then that will significantly increase my winrate imo.

Is there a simple formula or method to calculate which games are unbeatable due to the rake (assuming you know or can reasonable calculate your win rate)?

Jag, since you're paying a shitload for the rake can you tell me if this is correct?

If I show via PT that I win in the range of 1 BB/100 hands that I am still losing? If the rake is only 5% wouldn't that mean that I would need to be winning 3-4 BB/100 hands to show any real profit?

I'm assuming here that a BB is approximately double the big blind mainly because I have never read a clarifying definition of the BB/100 nomenclature.

I think poker tracker means "Big Bet" as in limit games for BB/100 so yes, BB would mean 2x big blind. i think.

Well if your showing in PT that you are a 1PTBB/100 winner, then that is net of rake. So you will still be a marginal winner. If that answers your question?