| Author |
Message |
acesfullokings9
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1740
Location: Australia
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:02 am Post subject: The Rake |
 |
|
| I'm here to just quickly mention the R word. I won an almost $20 pot in .5/.1 NL Holdem. The Rake was nearly $2. I was railing TexasLimitKing and an opponent, and a $10k+ pot had rake of $0.50, seems rough ..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
I HATE CAPS
Straight Flush
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 357
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| not rough at all. those huge tables are usually heads up. if you check you will see sometimes they play 200+ hands an hour. while at .5/.1 you dont play 50 or 60 an hour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acesfullokings9
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1740
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Never thought of it that way |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ftn_chris
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 1178
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| i still agree with aces though...they are playing stakes 100x bigger, the rake should be bigger..at the moment it is kind of proportionate to the pot, but it does get off some of the time. (2 dollars in a 20, 3 in a 10k) . Maybe cap rakes? no more than one big blind at any stake, then keep max at big stakes 3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SlySelea
Straight Flush
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 422
Location: New Buffalo, MI
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ftn_chris wrote: |
| i still agree with aces though...they are playing stakes 100x bigger, the rake should be bigger... |
Wadder you, some kind of commie pinko liberal?!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I HATE CAPS
Straight Flush
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 357
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ftn_chris wrote: |
| i still agree with aces though...they are playing stakes 100x bigger, the rake should be bigger..at the moment it is kind of proportionate to the pot, but it does get off some of the time. (2 dollars in a 20, 3 in a 10k) . Maybe cap rakes? no more than one big blind at any stake, then keep max at big stakes 3. |
the rake isnt taken because you are playing high stakes. the rake is taken to allow you to have a table. thats all it is. its a fee you pay to use FTP's table. it shouldnt really matter how much money is on that table. just that you are using it and FT is charging you.
Last edited by I HATE CAPS on Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acesfullokings9
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1740
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do you work here or something?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I HATE CAPS
Straight Flush
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 357
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
 i wish my job was this cool. ive read alot of books on poker and the inner workings of poker sites and casinos so i understand alot of what goes on. as you can see everything ive said here makes plenty of sense when you think about it. thats all textbook stuff if you read poker books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bizarroquinn
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 1044
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I HATE CAPS wrote: |
| ftn_chris wrote: |
| i still agree with aces though...they are playing stakes 100x bigger, the rake should be bigger..at the moment it is kind of proportionate to the pot, but it does get off some of the time. (2 dollars in a 20, 3 in a 10k) . Maybe cap rakes? no more than one big blind at any stake, then keep max at big stakes 3. |
the rake isnt taken because you are playing high stakes. the rake is taken to allow you to have a table. thats all it is. its a fee you pay to use FTP's table. it shouldnt really matter how much money is on that table. just that you are using it and FT is charging you.
registration fees are diffrent. those do increase with the stakes because it requires more work. setting up a tournament and processing the winnings is harder then simply transfering cash from one stack to another in cash games. |
How would processing winnings for a tourney be any different than cash games, you're actually transfering cash less often, just for larger amounts to fewer people. We know that Full Tilt does not incur any costs transfering money from player to player. Really the only reason tournament fees would increase with the buyin is that when most tournaments (such as WSOP) give players the same amount of tournament chips as their buyin, (example $10,000 in tourney chips for the WSOP main event) the tournament would last longer, requiring higher dealer expenses, paying tournament directors, and costs to produce tournament chips. Online most everything is automated and these costs just dont exist. At least not in proportion to the buy in cost.
If anything, the double stack tourneys should have a bigger fee cause they take longer to complete. Granted, I dont know what Full Tilt's cost per table per hour is, but it shouldnt change between stakes and formats.
The worst problem with the rake on Full Tilt is the .05/.10 NL is raked at 10% and all other NL games are raked at 5%, that really damages the people playing low limits and makes the games almost unbeatable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I HATE CAPS
Straight Flush
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 357
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yeah i guess you are right. tournament fees dont actually need to go up. there are no dealers, no chips, and no tables. but i stand by my rake analysis on cash games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deadmoney314
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 16 Jul 2005
Posts: 3226
Location: grunching through reply posts
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Keep in mind the rake in a B&M is twice that of online and you don't have to think about tipping, jackpot drops etc. Personally, I don't complain about online rake but that's just me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigguz2000
Two Pair
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 68
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ive had alot of the rakes online be determined on how any people are t the table. liek heads up here it's only .50 at any limits, but when theres 6 people its a max of $3, or 9 its a max of $4.50. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acesfullokings9
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 1740
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deadmoney314 wrote: |
| Keep in mind the rake in a B&M is twice that of online and you don't have to think about tipping, jackpot drops etc. Personally, I don't complain about online rake but that's just me. |
I wasn't complaining I just noticed it was higher than I expected.
Also we Aussies don't tip |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kloaked Spirit
Royal Flush
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 869
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigguz2000 wrote: |
| Ive had alot of the rakes online be determined on how any people are t the table. liek heads up here it's only .50 at any limits, but when theres 6 people its a max of $3, or 9 its a max of $4.50. |
Most B&M casinos behave in the same manner. Both places (depending on where you play) may also alter the rake slightly for the high stakes tables as those tend to be very short handed when they're in use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
junkbutton
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 4043
Location: Gutterrock, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder what the rake is at The Big Game...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
