# How to not play 1 cent of rake

• Bronze
Joined: 17.10.2008
This is just my theory. Say you are playing NL10 and you get dealt AA and you go all in preflop against a villain holding KK and you stack him. The final pot is \$20 and the house takes \$0.50 cents rake. You can just assume that the house took the 50 cents from his stack not yours so in actual fact you were playing to win \$9.50 all along.

Is this theoretically correct or stupid?
• 11 replies
• Bronze
Joined: 18.03.2008
kinda sucks that he can win ur entire 10\$ stack all in with a 9.5\$ stack
• Bronze
Joined: 06.10.2008
Originally posted by Joronamo
This is just my theory. Say you are playing NL10 and you get dealt AA and you go all in preflop against a villain holding KK and you stack him. The final pot is \$20 and the house takes \$0.50 cents rake. You can just assume that the house took the 50 cents from his stack not yours so in actual fact you were playing to win \$9.50 all along.

Is this theoretically correct or stupid?
You know that you don't have a 100% chance to win with AA vs KK right?
It's the same situation with every single hand you're dealt. You've got a chance to win and a chance to lose but you're always going to pay rake.

Not to mention the fact that you're never going to be a winning player in the first place if you fold everything but AA. You're going to try avoid paying the site you're playing at, but instead all your money is going to go to the other players.
• Bronze
Joined: 17.10.2008
Originally posted by Octhellior
Originally posted by Joronamo
This is just my theory. Say you are playing NL10 and you get dealt AA and you go all in preflop against a villain holding KK and you stack him. The final pot is \$20 and the house takes \$0.50 cents rake. You can just assume that the house took the 50 cents from his stack not yours so in actual fact you were playing to win \$9.50 all along.

Is this theoretically correct or stupid?
You know that you don't have a 100% chance to win with AA vs KK right?
It's the same situation with every single hand you're dealt. You've got a chance to win and a chance to lose but you're always going to pay rake.

Not to mention the fact that you're never going to be a winning player in the first place if you fold everything but AA. You're going to try avoid paying the site you're playing at, but instead all your money is going to go to the other players.
I dont think you understand this thread buddy. That scenario was an example. THis thread isnt about AA vs KK winning 100% of the time. Its about the rake being taken from his stack not yours hence the thread title.
• Bronze
Joined: 01.06.2008
i think of it being taken from me stack (win or lose). it is fun to imagine how much money we would of all won without rake
• Bronze
Joined: 17.10.2008
Although this thread is suggesting different. You cant actually pay rake from losing a hand. If you lose a stack of \$10, you have lost your money thats it, you cannot lose more with rake. Same with losing a non showdown hand, you have lost your money and only the winner pays rake because the house deducts from the pot which the winner eventually claims.
• Bronze
Joined: 06.10.2008
No, you still pay rake, even if you lose. If two players go allin for \$10 each and the total rake is 50c, then both players will have paid 25c rake.

It's because of this that you still get FPPs if you lose a pot.

I know what you're trying to say but you're wrong. Rake is based on how much money is in the pot. If the rake is 5% and you invest \$2 in a pot, whether you win or lose you're going to pay 10c rake.
• Bronze
Joined: 02.02.2009
Oh man! If I never win a hand postflop then I pay ZERO rake! Additionally, I still collect rakeback since the rake paid is distributed evenly among all players!

Hmmm I guess I should play hyper-aggro preflop, trying to take down the pot whenever I see someone with a high fold-to-3bet raise and stealing blinds like crazy. If I get called I'll just check/fold flop and turn and fold the river just to be safe.

• Bronze
Joined: 17.10.2008
Originally posted by saxemephone
Oh man! If I never win a hand postflop then I pay ZERO rake! Additionally, I still collect rakeback since the rake paid is distributed evenly among all players!

Hmmm I guess I should play hyper-aggro preflop, trying to take down the pot whenever I see someone with a high fold-to-3bet raise and stealing blinds like crazy. If I get called I'll just check/fold flop and turn and fold the river just to be safe.

Haha you can still pay rake without a showdown. So I dont think your devious plan is going to work. Anyways this thread has gotten really side tracked. Read the OP by me and tell me whether this theory of mine is viable?
• Bronze
Joined: 01.06.2008
Originally posted by Joronamo
Although this thread is suggesting different. You cant actually pay rake from losing a hand. If you lose a stack of \$10, you have lost your money thats it, you cannot lose more with rake. Same with losing a non showdown hand, you have lost your money and only the winner pays rake because the house deducts from the pot which the winner eventually claims.
u still pay rake (in theory) when u lose b/c u have equity against his hand/range and the rake is deducted from the equity.
• Bronze
Joined: 18.03.2008
Originally posted by saxemephone
Oh man! If I never win a hand postflop then I pay ZERO rake! Additionally, I still collect rakeback since the rake paid is distributed evenly among all players!

Hmmm I guess I should play hyper-aggro preflop, trying to take down the pot whenever I see someone with a high fold-to-3bet raise and stealing blinds like crazy. If I get called I'll just check/fold flop and turn and fold the river just to be safe.