How to beat the rake?

    • feketepok
      feketepok
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.09.2010 Posts: 56
      Hi,

      I have read a lot of discussions on why someone wouldn't be able to build a large enough bankroll to move up, and keeps playing at NL2. I just think the 6% rake is really huge, and it is a lot easier to beat other players than to beat the rake.

      If you consider (at NL2) an average pot of $0.30, then there is a $0.02 rake on it. If you play 100 hands, that is $2. There are 9 people at the table, so you pay about $0.22. That is 11 BB!!!

      I have heard that someone who can make on average 5 BB / 100 hands, is a good player. But if I make 5BB, and the rake is 11BB, then I actually lose -6BB/100 hands!

      Another painful example: Suppose you just play 2 hands, you start with $2, you go all-in (against $2), and win. Then you actually get ($4-rake)=$3.76. The the next hand you go all-in again (against $2), but this time you lose. Then you are left with $1.76. You actually lost 12% of your capital, although you have played all right... That is a huge loss!

      This makes me also wonder if all the formulas we learn in all the articles are correct or not. They do not consider the rake. It actually does not seem to be profitable in the long run to go all-in when I have 51% chance of winning. In fact, it seems to me that I need at least 56% chance to be able to beat not just my opponent, but the rake too!!!
  • 9 replies
    • supeyrio
      supeyrio
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.11.2009 Posts: 3,106
      play NL5 done
    • JonikoP
      JonikoP
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.05.2010 Posts: 600
      Rake is really bad at the micros but you will have a HUGE edge at NL2 if you do even a small amount of study and you would be able to beat the rake comfortably. I played my first 10,000 hands at NL2 and had something like a 10BB/100 win rate after rake.

      Rakeback deals will certainly help your bottom line too. Don't worry too much about trying to factor in rake - just learn to play solid, make +EV moves and try to move up. Nobody plays NL2 for very long so learning the game is way more important than profit.
    • feketepok
      feketepok
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.09.2010 Posts: 56
      supeyrio: NL5 has the same rake (in percentage) as NL2. So it doesn't help.
    • Alficor1
      Alficor1
      Bronze
      Joined: 16.06.2010 Posts: 7,291
      Move up to where the rake respects you.
    • Termi8r
      Termi8r
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.02.2008 Posts: 408
      I treat it as a serious question... :s_confused:

      Stay at Nl2 until you beat it regardless of the rake. People play there for lolz so you should beat it easy unless you make some serious errors.

      Gl
    • scscpoker
      scscpoker
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.06.2010 Posts: 121
      Originally posted by feketepok
      I have heard that someone who can make on average 5 BB / 100 hands, is a good player. But if I make 5BB, and the rake is 11BB, then I actually lose -6BB/100 hands!
      Beating game by 5bb means he is already beating it by about 15bb, so 66% of his profit is in rake. (Imagine poker without rake, every breakeven player would beat game by 10bb/100)

      About that %, of course for 35% u must have pot odds about 40%, but most times u also have chance of being against weaker hands, there is fold equity, implied odds etc.
    • Termi8r
      Termi8r
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.02.2008 Posts: 408
      Or just put some $$$ in and start at NL10.
    • alejandrosh
      alejandrosh
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.07.2008 Posts: 4,346
      rake at the micros is awful and it's your worst enemy. rake never tilts, rake never spews, rake always has a solid winrate.
      but the players are way worse so it's easily beatable. if it wasn't everyone would have started at the midstakes.
    • fuzzyfish
      fuzzyfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.01.2010 Posts: 862
      Originally posted by supeyrio
      play NL5 done
      You meant NL400?

      Cause I don't think there's a large difference up to that one.