Why do most players lose overall?

[GCB]

The rake is a rake on the pot. So if you are playing .01/.02 and the pot reaches $1.00 a 5% rake is .05., or 2.25BB. The rake isn't even taken on pre-flop pots, it's capped, and here's the kicker, the rake is taken from winners, not losers. Losers are going to lose the same amount whether there is a rake or not. It's the winners who pay. So you only have to worry about the rake if you are a winner, not a loser. It's sort of a like a tax on the wealthy. So if you come in and win few pots the rake isn't the problem that caused you to lose.

Look at it this way. Suppose there was one player who in play money games contributed 5% to every pot you won. Now suppose when you move to real money games that player is no longer there and you don't get that 5%. Do you really think him not being there is going to be the difference between you being profitable or not?

I'm not saying the rake doesn't hurt. I'm just saying it's not close to the primary reason there are a lot of losers. It might tip the scale against some close-to-breakeven players, but it's not what creates the majority of the losers.

 

[GCB]

Found this kinda funny, its the north vs the south mentality People in the north turn the thermostat down to save money, people in the south turn it up to save money

Yep. It's been 100+ in Central Texas for a month now. When we want to save money, we turn the thermostat up. :laugh:

 

[GCB]

I'm a trader and in real trading the commissions and exchange fees are the equivalent of the rake in poker. Commissions hurt and a lot of newbie traders don't figure their cost into their business plan. However, winning traders do figure them in. Commissions make trading harder, but a trader who can win without commissions can win with them. Likewise the rake makes playing for real money harder. But a player who can win without it can learn to win with it. It's just a matter of doing certain things more efficiently, that's just common sense, too.

You have to have a business plan and it has to add up. You have to be brutally honest with yourself. Don't say, "I won $100 today not counting the rake." Just say, "I won $95 today." Likewise don't say, "I would have broken even today if it hadn't been for the rake." Just say, "I lost today."

 

[Roller]

rake

Did I say Rake
hmmmm
RAKE
RAKE !!!!!!!!

Must Be They can't keep up with the RAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have to say it's RAKE ............................

 

[shinedown.45]

Someone say CAKE?.........oh, RAKE, nevermind

 

[jdeliverer]

However, winning traders do figure them in. Commissions make trading harder, but a trader who can win without commissions can win with them.

This is where you go wrong. Many traders (poker players) that can win without commissions (rake) CAN'T win with them (it). If you are a marginal winner for .5 bb/100 before rake, you will be a losing player after rake.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

* can someone please provide some statistics for overall -BB/100 (the avg rake paid) for all players in their database at microstakes (5% rake). I don't have one atm.

here's the rake i paid at different stakes in big bets/100 hands (1 BB = 2 big blinds)

25nl FR: 3.5 BB/100
25nl 6max: 5.1 BB/100
50nl FR: 3.2 BB/100
50nl 6max: 4.7 BB/100
100nl FR: 2.6 BB/100
100nl 6max: 3.2 BB/100
200nl FR: 2.2 BB/100
200nl 6max: 2.6 BB/100

I haven't played any significant amount below that, and the micro stakes numbers are about a year old. I only play 200nl now. Overall i've paid about $12k in rake so far in 2009 and i don't even play that much volume. Anybody who thinks that rake is just an irrelevant nickel on the dollar is either a microstakes fish or simply delusional.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Losers are going to lose the same amount whether there is a rake or not. It's the winners who pay. So you only have to worry about the rake if you are a winner, not a loser.

another proof that you have no clue.

typically, the fishes pay more rake than the winning regs because they play much looser and more passively.

 

[Infamous1020]

another proof that you have no clue.

typically, the fishes pay more rake than the winning regs because they play much looser and more passively.

this

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

The rake is a rake on the pot. So if you are playing .01/.02 and the pot reaches $1.00 a 5% rake is .05., or 2.25BB. The rake isn't even taken on pre-flop pots, it's capped, and here's the kicker, the rake is taken from winners, not losers. Losers are going to lose the same amount whether there is a rake or not. It's the winners who pay. So you only have to worry about the rake if you are a winner, not a loser. It's sort of a like a tax on the wealthy. So if you come in and win few pots the rake isn't the problem that caused you to lose.

newsflash: losing players win hands sometimes

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

Found this kinda funny, its the north vs the south mentality People in the north turn the thermostat down to save money, people in the south turn it up to save money

So you're assuming that everyone in the world lives in the USA? I don't live anywhere near the North Pole... but that analogy wouldn't work either, as presumably the South Pole is cold too. Didn't realise everyone in the south of the USA could afford air conditioning - but what do I know?

 

[GCB]

another proof that you have no clue.

typically, the fishes pay more rake than the winning regs because they play much looser and more passively.

No need to get nasty.

All you are saying is the problem is that their style of play is not suited to the rake. So they should change it. But complaining about the rake is not going to help.

It's like saying you are a big serve and volleyer and your game is not suited to clay court play, so you blame the clay court. Well, yeah, if you're are looking for something to blame other than yourself, sure. But if you want to win, blaming the clay court is not going to help one little bit. You have to adjust your game.

Or it's like saying John Daly can't win the US Open because the fairways are too narrow for his big drives. Well, he could blame the fairways, or he could tee off with a 3-wood, which he can hit as far as most pros hit their drivers.

The question is, Do you want to win, or do you want to gripe? Most losers are content with griping, which is why they are losers.


Anyway, your premise is false. The losers pay more rake, everyone does. But they don't pay more overall on their losing hands than they would if there were no rake. The rake only affects pot winners, it doesn't affect pot losers at all. What difference does it make to the loser if the winner gets all the pot or if the winner gets half the pot and the widows and orphans fund gets the other half? Nothing.

The losers do win some hands, but it's not the rake taken from their winnings that makes them losers. It's the losing play on their losing hands.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

No need to get nasty.

All you are saying is the problem is that their style of play is not suited to the rake. So they should change it. But complaining about the rake is not going to help.

It's like saying you are a big serve and volleyer and your game is not suited to clay court play, so you blame the clay court. Well, yeah, if you're are looking for something to blame other than yourself, sure. But if you want to win, blaming the clay court is not going to help one little bit. You have to adjust your game.

Or it's like saying John Daly can't win the US Open because the fairways are too narrow for his big drives. Well, he could blame the fairways, or he could tee off with a 3-wood, which he can hit as far a most pros his their drivers.

The question is, Do you want to win, or do you want to gripe? Most losers are content with griping, which is why they are losers.

Using bad analogies won't make your point any better.

Rake makes the average player (in the sense he breaks even without rake) a significant loser. In order to be a winner, you don't need to be better than average, you need to very significantly better than average. Very few people are.

I am, by the way. I doubt it's your case.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

No need to get nasty.

All you are saying is the problem is that their style of play is not suited to the rake. So they should change it. But complaining about the rake is not going to help.

It's like saying you are a big serve and volleyer and your game is not suited to clay court play, so you blame the clay court. Well, yeah, if you're are looking for something to blame other than yourself, sure. But if you want to win, blaming the clay court is not going to help one little bit. You have to adjust your game.

Or it's like saying John Daly can't win the US Open because the fairways are too narrow for his big drives. Well, he could blame the fairways, or he could tee off with a 3-wood, which he can hit as far as most pros hit their drivers.

The question is, Do you want to win, or do you want to gripe? Most losers are content with griping, which is why they are losers.

seriously what are you rambling on about

the question was why do most people lose

the answer is rake

this is undisputable fact, rake takes out ~2-3bb/100 for the average player, and a very good winning player will generally make only ~5bb/100 after rake. no single prevalent leak accounts for as much as the loss incurred by rake.

why are you talking about golfers whining about fairways

seriously what the heck is going on here

 

[Infamous1020]

seriously what are you rambling on about

the question was why do most people lose

the answer is rake

this is undisputable fact, rake takes out ~2-3bb/100 for the average player, and a very good winning player will generally make only ~5bb/100 after rake. no single prevalent leak accounts for as much as the loss incurred by rake.

why are you talking about golfers whining about fairways

seriously what the heck is going on here

lol yeah pretty sure simple calculations would support this

 

[NoWuckingFurries]

Using bad analogies won't make your point any better.

Rake makes the average player (in the sense he breaks even without rake) a significant loser. In order to be a winner, you don't need to be better than average, you need to very significantly better than average. Very few people are.

I am, by the way. I doubt it's your case.

GCB you keep talking as if Belgo is a sore loser, but he is actually a very successful poker player, and I would respectfully like to suggest that you could learn a lot from him if you are willing to listen to what he says. Check out this thread:

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/poker-goals-challenges-wins-46/

There is one big difference between the rake that a casino takes on roulette, and the rake that is taken on poker. Nobody seriously expects to make a living out of roulette, because it is down to luck, and everybody knows that it's the rake (the house margin) which makes it unprofitable in the long term.

The OP asked "why do most players lose overall", and again it is down to rake. If it wasn't for rake, you would expect 50% of people to win and 50% of people to lose. Because of rake, people have to not only be able to beat the other players (which takes skill), but they have to win by a big enough margin to also pay the rake. So Belgo is only answering what the OP asked.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Anyway, your premise is false. The losers pay more rake, everyone does. But they don't pay more overall on their losing hands than they would if there were no rake. The rake only affects pot winners, it doesn't affect pot losers at all. What difference does it make to the loser if the winner gets all the pot or if the winner gets half the pot and the widows and orphans fund gets the other half? Nothing.

The losers do win some hands, but it's not the rake taken from their winnings that makes them losers. It's the losing play on their losing hands.

you do realize poker is a game where chance has role, don't you? So it's not like good players win 100% of their hands and losers loose 100% of theirs.

I've won about $12k so far this year overall, but that's just the balance between the $218k i have won in hands i won and the $206k i lost in the hands i lost.

 

[Infamous1020]

you do realize poker is a game where chance has role, don't you? So it's not like good players win 100% of their hands and losers loose 100% of theirs.

I've won about $12k so far this year overall, but that's just the balance between the $218k i have won in hands i won and the $206k i lost in the hands i lost.

lol belgo if this guy doesnt understand yet, then i dont think hes going to

 

[Tom1559]

I think it a combination of all of the tings mentioned above. Oh and als the fact that most players think thy are actually better than they really are. online poker is full of guys who think they are good but in fact are not even average players which is why they lose.

 

[marysgirl883]

I think most people lose because they are not paying attention to what is going on..They are not watching the table and reading the others players. Learning to read other players to me is the most important part of playing poker..

 

[Stu_Ungar]

The rake is a rake on the pot. So if you are playing .01/.02 and the pot reaches $1.00 a 5% rake is .05., or 2.25BB.

Rake equates to 7.5BB at microstakes.

 

[GCB]

Before reading this post, please note it contains an apology below, particularly to Belgo, so please hear me out.

Rake makes the average player (in the sense he breaks even without rake) a significant loser. In order to be a winner, you don't need to be better than average, you need to very significantly better than average. Very few people are.

Yes, I know this. Someone else in the thread said that if there were no rake there would be 50% winners and 50% losers. Obviously he wasn't thinking quite right on that. Even without a rake their is going to be a minority of winning players to losing players. Only the best are going be able to see a profit.

you do realize poker is a game where chance has role, don't you? So it's not like good players win 100% of their hands and losers loose 100% of theirs.

Absolutely I understand this. Your winnings are the balance of winners and losers, minus expenses.

Look, I think everyone misunderstood my point. I wasn't looking at the original question of why the decent, but average players loses, but rather, Why is he average. That's a different question than what Belgo answered. A player is not average because of the rake, the rake just exposes his averageness and possibly tips the scale to making him a loser.

My background is trading. I come to poker from being a daytrader. There are many similarities between the two that are too numerous to list. One is there are many losers and only few winners, your winnings are the balance of you winners and losers, and that the margin of profitability is razor thin. Obviously commissions and fees (the trading equivalent of the rake) turn many marginally winning traders into losers, and you will hear professionals warning fledgling traders to take those expenses into account. But you won't hear anyone saying that commissions make a loser.

I didn't become a winning trader by blaming commissions on my losses. I became a winning trader by factoring in my commissions and learning how to win in spite of them. I'm not bragging, it's just about survival.

One thing I've noticed on this board is the high number of whiners (present company excepted) griping about this or that, who seem to be trying to find an excuse for losing. And my thought is, You'll never win that way. I guess I got carried away and thought I was back on a trading forum reading some of the whiners there, and went into know-it-all mode.

So I deeply apologize to all, especially Belgo, for insinuating that was happening in this thread. I was out of line for doing that and I'm sorry.

 

[eddy2009]

I lose because many times because I am not expercened enough and need more practice.

 

[MrMuckets]

Certain players in this forum are big money players, if they say it's rake then It's RAKE. Simple as that.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I didn't become a winning trader by blaming commissions on my losses. I became a winning trader by factoring in my commissions and learning how to win in spite of them. I'm not bragging, it's just about survival.

Nor do you pay commissions fees as high as poker rake.

Until you reach the cap, rake paid in BB/100 can, and often is, more than winnings in BB/100 (and that's for someone showing a profit).

To make money you must make 7.5BB/100 just to pay the rake at FT.