Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Ship Knapped, post: 7054784, member: 1043732"] You bring up a very important issue about the rake in poker games, especially at low-stakes cash games like 1/2c. The high rake relative to pot sizes makes it extremely challenging to turn a profit, even for skilled players. Let’s analyze your idea about an alternative rake structure and its implications: [HEADING=2][B]Your Current Situation:[/B][/HEADING] [LIST] [*][B]Pot example[/B]: $1.60 (160c) [*]You contributed $0.78 (78c), winning $0.82 after the rake. [*]A $0.10 rake means [B]12.2% of your winnings[/B] go to the casino. [/LIST] This highly effective rake significantly impacts your win rate over the long run, as it disproportionately affects small-stakes players. The rake on small pots (often capped at a flat fee) eats into the profits, making it harder for you to cover the cost of doing business. [HEADING=2][B]Your Proposal: Rake Based on Stack Size[/B][/HEADING] You propose paying the rake upfront based on the stack size you bring to the table, which is more comparable to a tournament entry fee. Here’s how this could play out: [LIST=1] [*][B]Mechanism[/B]: [LIST] [*]Players pay a fixed percentage (e.g., 5% or another agreed rate) of their initial buy-in to the casino as the rake. [*]Once seated, they keep 100% of their winnings without further deductions. [/LIST] [*][B]Advantages[/B]: [LIST] [*]The [B]impact of rake is neutralized for gameplay[/B], allowing for more strategic poker. [*]The model becomes more predictable for players; you know the cost upfront. [*]Players aren’t punished for winning smaller pots or playing tighter, as there’s no per-hand rake. [*]It could attract more casual players who dislike paying rake frequently. [/LIST] [*][B]Challenges[/B]: [LIST] [*][B]Variance in casino revenue[/B]: Casinos make their money from rake, and the per-hand system guarantees steady revenue. Switching to a stack-size model might reduce profitability, especially at lower stakes, unless carefully calculated. [*][B]Disincentive to rebuy[/B]: Players who bust and rebuy might feel like they’re paying the rake repeatedly, leading to dissatisfaction. [*][B]Regulation and logistics[/B]: Implementing and standardizing such a system across cash games might be challenging in live and online settings[B][/B] [*][B][/B] [*][B]Comparison to Tournaments[/B] [*][HEADING=2][B]Conclusion:[/B][/HEADING] Switching to a rake model based on the stack size is an interesting idea that could align cash games more closely with tournament play. However, its feasibility would depend on the willingness of casinos to adopt this change and the impact on their bottom line. For now, advocating for [B]lower micro-stakes rake[/B] or exploring [B]time-based fees[/B] might be more practical and realistic reforms. Would you like help in optimizing your current strategy to offset the rake’s impact In tournaments, the rake is essentially paid upfront as part of the buy-in (e.g., $100+$10, where $10 is the casino fee). This system feels "fair" because: [*]It’s a one-time fee for the duration of the event. [*]There’s no impact on in-game strategy. [/LIST] [*]Adopting a similar structure for cash games might bring them closer in fairness to tournaments, but the variability in buy-ins and the ongoing nature of cash games could complicate the model. [*][HEADING=2][B] Potential Solutions:[/B][/HEADING] [LIST=1] [*][B]Reduced Small-Stakes Rake[/B]: Many players advocate for [B]lower rake percentages[/B] or [B]higher rake caps[/B] at micro-stakes to make the games more sustainable. For example: [LIST] [*]A flat 5% rake with a $0.05 cap could significantly improve profitability at 1/2c games. [*]Casinos might still make money by encouraging more player volume. [/LIST] [*][B]Time-Based Rake[/B]: Another alternative is a [B]time-based fee[/B] (e.g., $5 per hour per seat), which decouples the casino's earnings from the pot size. This structure is sometimes used in private games and high-stakes poker. [*][B]Modified Per-Hand Rake[/B]: Adjusting the rake structure to be [B]proportional to winnings[/B], rather than the pot size, might feel fairer. For example, raking a percentage only from the winner's profit over their contribution. [/LIST] [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language