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.
Would like feedback on new chance-based rake collecting method. The info for this method can be found at www.burntherake.com.
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: Tiltpoul
3) 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.
If 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.
When 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.
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.