New Chance-Based Rake Collecting Method
Thanks
When playing, I survive at a 5%-8% advantage over most players. It's critical that this advantage is not overcome by rake; current rake already reduces it to only about 3% for live games on an average table. I can't afford to take the chance for doubled rake. Even at bottom limit tables (which are the only ones where this would be considered, presumably), I can only operate as about a 65% favorite - enough to overcome the usual 10% up to $5 rake, but not enough to take on a potential 20% drop.
Randomized rake is an additional factor that I have to take into account when calculating potential winnings from the hand. It complicates my math and increases my chances of making a mistake, while failing to compensate for it with additional mistakes from other players, as they aren't in my favor. It also increases the variance (randomness) of the game, in a way that does not improve it.
Added variance is not good for me. It's bad enough taking these exact two turn and river cards filling a one-pair's double gutshot he didn't even see, without the added disappointment of making a 57% hero call to stack the opponent and only getting 80% of what I risk.
So answering the question going throughout the site:
I don't give a rat's bunghole about the chance to pay no rake on a pot I have already won.Quote:How would you like the chance to pay no rake on a pot you win?
At the point when rake is determined in your scheme, the pot is already mine. So not like I don't care, but rake or no rake is not going to make or break my day. It just bets 10% of my pot on an even-money house-advantage game of single card value. It's not fun, because the amount to win or lose is small, and it doesn't make the game feel better, because you play out the rest of the hand assuming it is raked.
Rake makes or breaks the hand when I have to put money into the pot. Without rake, 51% to win would be enough (in a SB vs BB situation, for simplicity), while with rake it's about 56%. Higher rake means playing fewer hands and playing made hands with more preflop call-raising and re-raising, because a hand good in a no-flop pot without rake may not be good in a raked pot.
If the rake has to be random, at least make it decided before I push my chips in. Before the hand would be nice. At the flop would be all right, since flop/no flop decides if there is rake at all. This means you'll have to show the burn card(s), which will have a small effect on the game. Such an effect is not really negative, as it serves to cut down on variance, and it may be attractive to beginner/intermediate players who focus heavily on the cards and enjoy the extra information.
While I certainly don't like anything that increases the rake, that way I would at least know where I stand and be able to play, not just gamble, once the rake percentage has been decided.
Quote: burntherakeWould like feedback on new chance-based rake collecting method. The info for this method can be found at www.burntherake.com.
Thanks
I just read your website, and I see some logistical nightmares with your proposed method.
1) Do you have this implemented in any casinos? Are there ANY high-profile (or medium-profile for that matter) that have expressed interest in your method?
I ask this because I find it hard to think any casino would be interested in paying for trademarked idea when the method they use is perfectly fine. I see a 90-day risk free trial, but if a card room isn't keen on the idea after 90-days, what do you get out of the deal?
2) Have you explored gaming laws in multiple states?
Even though it's played player vs. player, any rake collected must pass rigorous inspection by gaming commissions. No two commissions operate exactly the same way, and approval in some states can take over a year. Furthermore, any place using such a method could be scrutinized with the showing burn card scenario.
3) Have you thrown this idea out amongst poker players?
I agree with P90 that this system is terrible for advantage poker players. I would not say I'm a professional or near there, but I can play at a break-even level, going into positive territory when accounting comps and hotel room stays. Any deviation of a rake would negatively impact my bottom line, and while I might find the idea novel at first, I imagine I would get annoyed with it very quickly.
I wish you the best of luck with this. I wouldn't hold my breath for any sort of widespread phenomenon. Your best bet would be to jump to card clubs that take rakes, but even then, I think players would object.
They don't need some new goofy method of adding variance and delays to the game. And they certainly don't need to pay you for the privilege. Players don't need it either.
If you move forward with this, get rid of the blackjack references.
He's doing that now.Quote: Tiltpoul3) Have you thrown this idea out amongst poker players?
As a poker player, I hate it. If I wanted to play something with some silly element of chance, I wouldn't be playing poker.
-- Ms. D.
Primarily, poker room players aren't interested in gimics. They are there to compete against one another and the better ones can win consistently while teaching players such as myself that I need to spend more time honing my game before getting taught too many expensive lessons.
The rake is a cost of playing and, if predictable, is a necessary evil but one that players put up with to have a third party run the game.
Highlighting this necessary cost and then compounding the negative by making it more volatile doesn't seem to be an answer.
When you are changing an existing game in the casino, you need to ask yourself "what problem with the existing game am I solving with this new concept?" I don't think the negativity of the rake is solved by this concept, you just increase the volatility of what the rake ends up being. Regular poker players are looking for less unpredictable volatility so their skill can win the game.
If any player at the table decided that they would take this option, others at the table will just ridicule them. This would also slow the game down, which would slow down the overall rake taken from the table if few take your double rake options. The sharks do not want the fish money going down the drain. I also see legal issues here that I don't think the spammer, er, I mean the inventor of this game does not get. The max rake in cash games is set by law in most jurisdictions. I would think that this rake format would have trouble getting approval where the law specifically sets a max rake.
Quote: mipletIf there is 1 burn card it increase the rake by 7.6923077 % . 2 burn cards =19.7586727 %. Ouch! This assumes I don't have a braino and/or typo somewhere and each card is likely to be a burn card.
The house edge of 7.69% is on the amount of rake taken. So let's say it is a 10% rake, this means the average rake return will be 10.769% not 17.69% with one burn card; and 11.97% average with two burn cards. The increase in percent, is only over the percent of rake taken; not of the pot.
Quote: DorothyGaleWhen I play poker, I rarely notice the rake being taken ... it is done quite silently by the dealer and a good dealer will make it almost invisible ... though the house is gaining a stack of red chips about every an hour in most games, who even sees most of that? Bringing the rake to the attention of the players will only remind players of how much the house is actually winning ... while providing very little excitement for the player given the size of the rake vs. the size of most pots ... this is just a bad idea ...
-- Ms. D.
Ms. D
The rake is inevitable, as far as being noticed is wrong. I have worked in a poker room for almost the last decade and have seen the change in players over the years. There goes as far as players making sure the right amount of rake is taken for pot size. Players are always asking for reduced rakes nowadays. The rake is a common known fact nowadays then 10 years ago and players are becoming savvy over it. So if you're going to point out the rake, you mine as well put a good spin on it and allow for the chance to keep it.
Quote: PokeraddictFirst, the OP is spam. I hate to enter into dialogue with a spammer, but this idea is so bad that it is absurd. If the HIGHEST burn card is a 2,4,6,8 then there is no rake. Think about this, for a player to get rake free hands, the highest card must be a middle card out of three cards. It doubles if any of the highest burn is an odd card, including an ace. This is 5-4 in favor of double rake, even before you consider that every odd card is higher than its counterpart even card, and there is an extra card with a four trumps. At first glance, it would appear that if the high card is not a ten value card, 2/3 of the time a player is going to pay double rake.
If any player at the table decided that they would take this option, others at the table will just ridicule them. This would also slow the game down, which would slow down the overall rake taken from the table if few take your double rake options. The sharks do not want the fish money going down the drain. I also see legal issues here that I don't think the spammer, er, I mean the inventor of this game does not get. The max rake in cash games is set by law in most jurisdictions. I would think that this rake format would have trouble getting approval where the law specifically sets a max rake.
Max. rake in most jurisdictions is law, because the casino has submitted such amount in their internals. I know of Florida, Arizona and Washington that the operator must submit their amounts wanted. There is no max rake set into the gaming laws.
And on average, with one burn card double the rake will be 1:2.6 not 2:3.
And as far as spam I didn't believe this violated the policy, as I am not selling you guys anything.
It had all the indicators of spam.Quote: burntherakeAnd as far as spam I didn't believe this violated the policy, as I am not selling you guys anything.
You're a brand new member and provided no information about the topic you're asking about, except for the web address.
I too thought it might be spam, but decided to look at it before labeling it.
For the record, I would hope that this thread does not get purged for being labeled as spam or whatever.
The idea and question are interesting and intriguing.
And, frankly, I personally think Burn The Rake is such a terrible idea, that I hope as many people as possible see this thread.
Obviously, you are sold on this idea. You've knocked down most concerns that POKER PLAYERS have brought up. So good luck with your idea. I'm sure it will be a success. I'm sure the side games at the WSOP will be clamoring to take on this endeavor.
Quote: DJTeddyBearAnd, frankly, I personally think Burn The Rake is such a terrible idea, that I hope as many people as possible see this thread.
Really? We can't be more polite to a new member than this?
How many hands per hr should a poker table have with this system?
On the side of the casino they care about this as it tells them how much $ they should make an hr. While players who take poker seriously will not like the unknown people who are gamblers and not poker players may try their luck. For the record the argument on whether poker is luck or skill is up for debate I find gamblers and those against it say its luck, Those who take poker seriously and understand math and brain games will tell you its skill. For the casino it's just $.
While I would not take the chance b/c for me I make my $ on $20-50 pots the rake would just destroy me (bankroll), as well the slower pace of your system would mean I would need to play many more hrs. Others have pointed out casinos won't pay when they can simply do something for free (just raise the rake or use time).
However if you can prove and the casinos believe that they can make significantly more money with your system they may try it.
I will take this time to point out automated table. They were able to prove with a lower rake no dealer and more hands/hr the casino would easily pay for the table and have more in their pockets. How has that turned out?
Quote: bigfoot66I think there is more potential here than most posters are seeing. I think the idea needs something extra to make players go for it: A Jackpot. Not sure exactly how to implement it. Maybe if the two burn cards are a royal match (KQ) in spades then the player wins an extra $1000. Obviously I have put very little thought into the specifics here but most side bets need a big prize at the top to be attractive.
Bigfoot 66
There is a bonus when there are three are more burn cards used. Due to on-going proprietary action this will be resolved as an added element. Thanks
Quote: TiltpoulNot that it matters, but what does the casino do if there is an exposed burn card, either by dealer error, or a boxed card becoming the first burn card. Does that nullify the burn the rake promotion? If that's the case, players will FUME if the boxed card is a 2,4,6,8.
Obviously, you are sold on this idea. You've knocked down most concerns that POKER PLAYERS have brought up. So good luck with your idea. I'm sure it will be a success. I'm sure the side games at the WSOP will be clamoring to take on this endeavor.
Unfortunately for game security as other games, the regular rake will be taken only and if there is a bonus it too will be null. Such as in a shuffler error in table games.
Quote: whatmeBurntherake I think you should answer one question on your site that I didn't see.
How many hands per hr should a poker table have with this system?
On the side of the casino they care about this as it tells them how much $ they should make an hr. While players who take poker seriously will not like the unknown people who are gamblers and not poker players may try their luck. For the record the argument on whether poker is luck or skill is up for debate I find gamblers and those against it say its luck, Those who take poker seriously and understand math and brain games will tell you its skill. For the casino it's just $.
While I would not take the chance b/c for me I make my $ on $20-50 pots the rake would just destroy me (bankroll), as well the slower pace of your system would mean I would need to play many more hrs. Others have pointed out casinos won't pay when they can simply do something for free (just raise the rake or use time).
However if you can prove and the casinos believe that they can make significantly more money with your system they may try it.
I will take this time to point out automated table. They were able to prove with a lower rake no dealer and more hands/hr the casino would easily pay for the table and have more in their pockets. How has that turned out?
The regular rake is taking out as done with the house's pot-raked methods and amounts throughout the hand as normal. At the showdown or when there is only one player left the dealer turns up all burn cards (1, 2, 3 or (4 burn cards for 7-card stud)). They will either put the amount collected back into the pot and push 100% of the pot, drop what was already collected or take the additional amount equal to what is already collected. This has very minimal impact on speed of game and should lose one hand a hour tops.
True a casino can just raise their rake amount like some in Illinois have gone to $7 max rake while others in area are $5 and 6 max.. But why make every hand be affected by such a rake increase and make all players pay for it, when you can make the players that take the chance to keep the rake pay for extra amount wanted by casinos.
Quote: TiltpoulNot that it matters, but what does the casino do if there is an exposed burn card, either by dealer error, or a boxed card becoming the first burn card. Does that nullify the burn the rake promotion? If that's the case, players will FUME if the boxed card is a 2,4,6,8.
Obviously, you are sold on this idea. You've knocked down most concerns that POKER PLAYERS have brought up. So good luck with your idea. I'm sure it will be a success. I'm sure the side games at the WSOP will be clamoring to take on this endeavor.
A boxed card cannot be involved in a hand in any way. If there is a boxed card, it is set aside as if it were as some say "A scrap of paper." In some rare instances, a triple draw game may have the house rule that a boxed 2,3,4,5,7 in 2-7 or a wheel card in A-5 may be kept by a player.
As for my spam thoughts, I don't run the forum, it just seemed odd that someone would come in and say "come visit my site" instead of "this is my idea, let's discuss it".
Quote: PokeraddictA boxed card cannot be involved in a hand in any way. If there is a boxed card, it is set aside as if it were as some say "A scrap of paper." In some rare instances, a triple draw game may have the house rule that a boxed 2,3,4,5,7 in 2-7 or a wheel card in A-5 may be kept by a player.
I should have been a bit more clear... I meant an exposed card. However, the OP answered the question.
If whatme's comments are accurate, you're telling me a casual gambler who sees a 2,4,6,8 exposed will not throw a hissy fit about not getting to "burn the rake????" I'm telling you right now, some people will get up and walk away from that game if they feel they were cheated. I can hear it now...
"But it wasn't my fault that card was exposed. Call the floor over; they have to make this decision. I SAID CALL THE FLOOR."
You're only going to lose ONE HAND AN HOUR?? Again, I'm sure it'll be implemented in all Caesars properties soon. Bellagio will be jumping on this idea.
Quote: Tiltpoul
You're only going to lose ONE HAND AN HOUR?? Again, I'm sure it'll be implemented in all Caesars properties soon. Bellagio will be jumping on this idea.
Bellagio does not have a jackpot drop or any other gimmicks. I don't see this flying in any serious poker room. None of the CET poker rooms are serious, and rake 10% up to $5. One could end up with a $10 rake if they lose their side bet. The biggest issue I see here is the fish getting ridiculed for making dumb bets, which will break them faster and hurt how much the sharks make, which is why they will get ridiculed.
Also, not paying rake is an advanced concept, much like rakeback is. The target audience, the ones who know what rake is and does to the game, are not likely to take this high edge side bet. The ones that are the gamblers, are not going to understand what they are winning. They did not really win anything, they just did not lose more in their mind. I would think that lacks appeal to most fish.
I am also curious how the house would know how effective this is. Are they going to have the dealer mark how much extra was dropped or not dropped on certain hands, or is the overall drop difference how they will compare?
Quote: PokeraddictA boxed card cannot be involved in a hand in any way. If there is a boxed card, it is set aside as if it were as some say "A scrap of paper." In some rare instances, a triple draw game may have the house rule that a boxed 2,3,4,5,7 in 2-7 or a wheel card in A-5 may be kept by a player.
As for my spam thoughts, I don't run the forum, it just seemed odd that someone would come in and say "come visit my site" instead of "this is my idea, let's discuss it".
In poker a boxed card will be treated as a exposed burn card, only if there is one that hand anymore than that you are correct it's a misdeal. Same thing happens players get pissed in misdeals but they deal with it and move on to next hand.
I know you meant well with the your response, a short simple answer would help you get a better response from casino's. i.e. "you increase house take by xx% for just 1-2 hands per/hr "
I still don't know what happens to the rake, what are the odds? In short fill in the xx's with no other comment:
"you increase house take by xx% for just 1-2 hands per/hr "
Quote: burntherakeIn poker a boxed card will be treated as a exposed burn card, only if there is one that hand anymore than that you are correct it's a misdeal. Same thing happens players get pissed in misdeals but they deal with it and move on to next hand.
Are you saying that your game will change the rule on boxed cards? If there is a boxed card in a deck, it is removed and the next card is used in its place. Your side bet changes that? I don't understand your post here. Can you please clarify?
Quote: PokeraddictBellagio does not have a jackpot drop or any other gimmicks. I don't see this flying in any serious poker room. None of the CET poker rooms are serious, and rake 10% up to $5. One could end up with a $10 rake if they lose their side bet. The biggest issue I see here is the fish getting ridiculed for making dumb bets, which will break them faster and hurt how much the sharks make, which is why they will get ridiculed.
It's tough to convey sarcasm on here. Besides, the OP seems sold on the idea, so nothing we bring up here is likely to change his mind that this is a great idea, despite the fact that nearly every poker player on this board is vehemently opposed to the idea. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't put any effort to create a website and seek patent protection unless I was 100% confident that the idea was great.
I've even floated a three-card side bet based on the three cards on the flop. I'm convinced it would get action... but when I talk to people, they tell me it probably wouldn't. Oh well, no biggie. It's fun to come up with new ideas. But to go to the hassle of a patent and expansion? That seems like a waste of time and money for something that nearly everybody is hating.
Quote: Tiltpoul
I've even floated a three-card side bet based on the three cards on the flop. I'm convinced it would get action... but when I talk to people, they tell me it probably wouldn't...
Tiltpoul, this side-bet has already been introduced into Vegas a few years ago - I think it was at Palace Station for a while. Anyway, the wager got removed and is not in Vegas anymore as far as I'm aware.
Quote: buzzpaffThe problem here is that friends and co-workers invariable will tell any inventor his idea is great. This one truly sucks. If not dead on arrival, any decent poker dealer will do what he can to kill this idea. Just what a dealer wants, more work, and calculatimng the size of the pot and rake after the hand is over. DUMB IDEA !!
There is no calculating rake really when hand is over because you collect the regular 10% throughout the hand as normal. The dealer is either going to put back what he took out, leave it the way it is or take the same amount again from pot. No calculating.
Quote: TiltpoulI should have been a bit more clear... I meant an exposed card. However, the OP answered the question.
If whatme's comments are accurate, you're telling me a casual gambler who sees a 2,4,6,8 exposed will not throw a hissy fit about not getting to "burn the rake????" I'm telling you right now, some people will get up and walk away from that game if they feel they were cheated. I can hear it now...
"But it wasn't my fault that card was exposed. Call the floor over; they have to make this decision. I SAID CALL THE FLOOR."
You're only going to lose ONE HAND AN HOUR?? Again, I'm sure it'll be implemented in all Caesars properties soon. Bellagio will be jumping on this idea.
It happens all the time when a dealer flips up a players hole card and they don't get to keep it. Or worse when the dealer flips up more than one and someone who had a great starting hand who's card wasn't flipped doesn't get to keep it. Yes they get mad, but they get over it. Especially, If they see a 2, 4, 6 or 8 doesn't mean it's goin to be the highest card anyway.
Quote: PokeraddictBellagio does not have a jackpot drop or any other gimmicks. I don't see this flying in any serious poker room. None of the CET poker rooms are serious, and rake 10% up to $5. One could end up with a $10 rake if they lose their side bet. The biggest issue I see here is the fish getting ridiculed for making dumb bets, which will break them faster and hurt how much the sharks make, which is why they will get ridiculed.
Also, not paying rake is an advanced concept, much like rakeback is. The target audience, the ones who know what rake is and does to the game, are not likely to take this high edge side bet. The ones that are the gamblers, are not going to understand what they are winning. They did not really win anything, they just did not lose more in their mind. I would think that lacks appeal to most fish.
I am also curious how the house would know how effective this is. Are they going to have the dealer mark how much extra was dropped or not dropped on certain hands, or is the overall drop difference how they will compare?
Overall table drop difference. And the house edge is only on the rake amount, not pot amount. The average house hold for 10% rake room, with Burn the Rake, will be 10.77% - 12.35%. Example: house has a 10% - max. $3 rake and they want to go to 10% - $4 max. rake. Say there are 13 pots at $40, one for each outcome of difference in burn card values with Burn the Rake, when accounting for only one burn card being played. Say you win all 13 pots, you (the player) end up with $468 average hold , less $13 with their old rake. Now keep that 10% - max. $3 rake and add Burn the Rake to the game. Say you win all 13 pots, you end up with $478 hold on average, if taken down on flop each time. The player on average would hold more than the house raising the rake to make their quotas. That's what Burn the Rake is for, to deter the house from raising the rake, giving them a different option. Also, once players realize to take the pot down before the turn card is played, this will stimulate action.
So, you're saying your idea will change the way the game is played?Quote: burntherakeAlso, once players realize to take the pot down before the turn card is played, this will stimulate action.
VERY BAD IDEA!
Then again, the casino will welcome it, because it means more hands per hour. But you're giving the players another reason to hate it.
