Poker Rake Question

I usually read questions answered by Wizard of Odds. Although, he always uses math to prove house edge against many various casino games, I have not encountered him proving how much of a house edge the casino/online casino has in poker with rake being taken out of each hand. If you could please explain the house edge and how difficult it is to overcome in a 1-2NL game, max buy $300, 10% rake up to 4$ max with 1$ being taken out for Bad Beat Jackpot. Also if you have time try to explain the house edge for online poker as well which has a 5% rake up to $3.00. I want to know how big of an edge you need against other players to even overcome the rake and at what stakes will the rake not become important at all?

The reason it's never been calculated is because term "House Edge" does not apply to poker rakes.

The house edge in other games is easily calculated, and means the expected amount that the house will win. Of course, because of variance, the house could lose on any particular day, but over time, it will win the edge.

In poker, there is no variance. The house always merely takes the rake. There is no way to calculate how high a pot will grow to come up with an estimated percentage that the house wins. Suffice to say, in poker, the house always wins, a relatively fixed amount, regardless of the stakes or the play.

I'm not going to yack about house edge, hold and rake ... the best thing to do is to sample the rake at "bricks" casinos and then compare that rake to the "clicks" casinos. If there is a substantially higher rake then its probably a fatal one.

Atlantaguy,

When people say, "It is impossible to beat the rake at 1-2nL (or 3-6 FL) " they mean that the amount taken by the House is so high compared to the sizes of the pots.

In a game with a 10% rake up to 5$ max the average rake per hands averages to 3.50$... Whether a pot is 50$ or 5,000$ they only taking 5$ rake.... but there are the chops, 14$ pots, 20$ pots, etc etc

You say your casino has 4$ max plus 1$ promo

Lets round the number down significantly to 3$ per hand being taken from each pot.
If average dealer deals 30 hands per hour (which is not superior) That is 90$ taken off the table per hour.
That is EXTREME LOWBALLING.. and with ZERO dealer tokes.
And lets say the game is juicy.. where basically every pot is over 50$ which does happen. You are looking at closer to 150$ per hour

If your poker room sits 9 handed... Everybody buys in for 200$.... even at 100$ per hour rake.. which is extremely low.. every two hours.. an entire stack is taken off the table

Exactly, so if a stack comes off the table every 2 hours then I think poker at stakes of 1-2NL are probably unbeatable and -EV in the long run. Just like any other casino game, you might win a few stacks here and there but in the long run due to the high rake, you will have the rake edge against you. I also believe that your edge against other players today are much less than what they were maybe 5-7 years ago. Sure poker is a game of skill but only if you are playing poker vs other players and not have the house keep taking a substantial amount off the table each hand. To many people or recreational players it might seem small, only $4 per hand, but given 9 people buy in for $200, after 14-18 hours of play everyone has lost every chip to the house and tipping.

So my main question is, due to these rake structures, is it better for someone to just play other casino games with low house edge compared to sitting down with $200 at a 1-2NL or even low stakes FL games? My guess is that it's probably better to play other low house edge games in the long run than 1-2NL.

A 1/2 game is certainly beatable with a rake of 10% to $5. You can't expect to make more than about $30/hr but that's a pretty decent income. Any house game will ALWAYS have an edge so there is no comparison. The better players will win money if they play their game but table selection and money management are extremely important as well, along with many other factors.

Quote: TheNightfly

A 1/2 game is certainly beatable with a rake of 10% to $5. You can't expect to make more than about $30/hr but that's a pretty decent income. Any house game will ALWAYS have an edge so there is no comparison. The better players will win money if they play their game but table selection and money management are extremely important as well, along with many other factors.

I'd think it would be beatable maybe 10 years ago but not up to $30 an hour, that would be insane. Thats like 15big blinds an hour. I'd say it could be beatable possibly for $10 an hour after rake back then. Today, with people playing much more solid than back then, I am not sure if it is worth the time and effort unless you are doing it recreationally.

An example I thought of is this, given 30 hands an hour. Lets say you are given 5 opportunites to make money off of a hand vs another opponent per hour. So after 2 hours that is 10 opportunities. Lets say you have a 60/40 edge on your opponent in the long run. So to make the example easy, lets say you win 6 of the hands and lose 4 of them. Given they are a medium sized pot, you both commit 30$ of your stack to the pot on average. So the 6 hands that you win, you win $30 off of your opponent. However, its $30 - $4 - $1 BBJ - $1 toke/tip to the dealer. So your net gain would be $24.00 You do $24x6= $144.00. The 4 hands you lose you lose $30. So you lose $120.00. 144-120 = 24/ 2 hour = $12.00/hour. However that is given that your opponent is bad enough so that you have the 60/40 edge. If your edge is in the single digits vs most of the opponents at the table, your net gain would be either single dollars/ hour or break even. If you don't have an edge, you are toast.

I am saying all of this because, in the past year everytime I have been at a 1-2NL table, I have noticed that the players are getting better and better every year. They don't just donk off their money and they don't fall for traps or check raises as often.

If you're assuming heads-up play then you might have a point but you've likely got at least 6 or more opponents. With that in mind, your 60/40 win/loss ratio now has a different end result. You can only lose what you put into the pot in any one hand but you can win 3 or more times that amount when to take it down. This doesn't even include blind stealing and bluffed pots.

I said $30 would be at the high end long term in a 1/2 game but it's a decent living. Being a poker pro very seldom means being on TV in a high stakes ring game or on the final table of a multi-million dollar tournament. Being a poker pro means (for most of us) grinding out a living day in and day out and doing your best to stomach the swings. If you're not making at least $30 an hour at the tables then you're probably not going to survive and most people at your table are only there to pass the time and have some fun anyway. If you want to make a living at 1/2 it's out there.

Quote: atlantaguy

My guess is that it's probably better to play other low house edge games in the long run than 1-2NL.

Low HA games are still losers. At poker you can win if you're good enough.
Or do you mean as entertainment?

1-2NL at $90 rake per hour with 9 players average (any less than a near-full table is murder if rake is not reduced) will cost you $10/hour. You stand to win, perfect case, up to $1,600 (scooping everything). Likely gain/loss is doubling your stack at +$200 or losing it at -$200.
$10 blackjack at 0.5% HA and 100 hph will cost you $0.05*100=$5/hr. If you win all the hands, you stand to gain $1,000. Likely gain/loss (1SD) is +$102 or -$112. About double at 2SD.

So:
* Poker at lowest limits is about twice more expensive for you than blackjack.
* As an average player, you stand to gain or lose about half as much in blackjack.

The difference comes if you skill is not average. Skilled blackjack players are mistreated and banned, while skilled poker players earn a measure of respect. As your poker skill increases, if it gets into the top 1%, you'll be able to progress to higher limits. If your blackjack skill gets into the top 1%, you'll have to hide really well or complain about how you were banned.