| Should sites forego the rake? |
| Yes |
|
43% |
[ 7 ] |
| No |
|
56% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
jjpregler
Forum Pro
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 1449
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject: Should there be a rake with split pots?? |
 |
|
.10/.20 NLHE on Cake Poker. Rake is 5% there. I have $25. I get AA and raise UTG. The BB pushes all in with JJ and ofcourse I call ( he had more than me). So the pot is like $50. The board was like 34567 and we split with the straight on the board. Then I realized after the hand I have $24. I lost a dollar when I won the pot due to the rake!
I think in cases like this the sites should forego the rake and just split the pot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Flying_Kiwi
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6594
Location: somewhere spacific
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I made a post a few weeks ago on the same topic. I think if they need to take a rake, they should rake the blinds (if the SB or BB aren't splitting the pot) that way at the very least you get your money back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjpregler
Forum Pro
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 1449
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, I missed your post, let me search and see what was said there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjpregler
Forum Pro
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 1449
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjpregler
Forum Pro
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 1449
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flying_Kiwi wrote: |
| I made a post a few weeks ago on the same topic. I think if they need to take a rake, they should rake the blinds (if the SB or BB aren't splitting the pot) that way at the very least you get your money back. |
In mine, I was the BB so to make it fair, they could have taken the SB for this hand. I don't think anyone should lose money for winning the hand.
I've never been in a hand where this happened in a live casino game. I mean I've split pots, but there was a third or fourth player in the pot until at least the flop, so their contribution covered the rake. Does the same happen there? If only 2 players are involved in the hand from the beginning? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IABoomer
Moderator
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 4576
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, it happens even heads up. The house rake is for facilitating the game. Since a hand took place, you owe the house for that hand. Besides, split pots happen infrequently enough that it's not going to be a substantial loss in your BB/100 to pay the rake on a chopped pot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DJ Ninjah
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 2588
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wouldn't worry about it unless you play omaha hi/lo, or stud hi/lo. Then you get morons who pump the low on the river when you have the nut high, and have to deal with losing extra $ to the rake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flying_Kiwi
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6594
Location: somewhere spacific
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IABoomer wrote: |
| Yes, it happens even heads up. The house rake is for facilitating the game. Since a hand took place, you owe the house for that hand. Besides, split pots happen infrequently enough that it's not going to be a substantial loss in your BB/100 to pay the rake on a chopped pot. |
It's not so much the loss that pisses me off, but the fact that you are penalised for making the best possible poker play. It's more of a principle thing. Like one I have noticed happening is where the board turns into the best hand, and someone pushes out a huge bet on the river (to try fool the donks) and now of course I wanna call this, but pumping the pot up also pumps up the rake and means you will be getting less back - so the +ev play is actually to lose money. Now if that aint a paradox..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoxcarJack
Three of a Kind
Joined: 03 Oct 2006
Posts: 97
Location: Micros
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I voted yes to witholding the rake on split pots. But I've changed to looking at it a different way. I agree with IA Boomer you are paying for the table, the house provides the same service regardless of outcome. To massage the hurt a little further and put it into perspective in the future I'll treat it like it's the house getting the best hand. The house wins...Wait, why doesn't this feel better?
One aspect of my poker play that needs work is money management. I deal with money like an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. I try not to notice the rake most of the time.
A tactics question around splits---when you see a split coming do you want to force others out of the pot? I think it's only ever worked once for me when the board showed the best hand. But then that pumps up the pot to get eaten by the rake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjpregler
Forum Pro
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 1449
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoxcarJack wrote: |
I voted yes to witholding the rake on split pots. But I've changed to looking at it a different way. I agree with IA Boomer you are paying for the table, the house provides the same service regardless of outcome. To massage the hurt a little further and put it into perspective in the future I'll treat it like it's the house getting the best hand. The house wins...Wait, why doesn't this feel better?
One aspect of my poker play that needs work is money management. I deal with money like an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. I try not to notice the rake most of the time.
A tactics question around splits---when you see a split coming do you want to force others out of the pot? I think it's only ever worked once for me when the board showed the best hand. But then that pumps up the pot to get eaten by the rake. |
I won't do that in a rake game. It rarely works and it only will lose you money to the rake.
On a side note, I was in a hand before with th Ah and there were 5 hearts on the board. So I bet on the river and this dizzy girl, laughed and said what are you doing, we all have a flush it's gonna be a split pot as she calls. Then she was shocked when she realized that I had the best flush and then reality returned as it dawned on her that the board won't always play with a flsuh on the board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cornrpokit
Pair
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This idea is nonsense. The rake is due based on pot size, not based on whether there is a single winner to a hand. The dealer/site/house couldnt care less if every pot was split 9 ways, they'll still take whats theirs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjpregler
Forum Pro
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 1449
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cornrpokit wrote: |
| This idea is nonsense. The rake is due based on pot size, not based on whether there is a single winner to a hand. The dealer/site/house couldnt care less if every pot was split 9 ways, they'll still take whats theirs. |
It's not nonsense. It's business. It's not only when a single player wins the pot. There are times when there is a split pot and the players profit in spite of the rake. But it's just like when a player wins a pot PF, they don't take a rake there, because there the win is usually so small, htat it is a business decision to not alienate their customers by taking a rake off their small profit. So why shouldn't the same logic apply here when taking the rake will actually cause the winning hand to lose money, they should make the business decision to not rape their players in that case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HuJwang
Forum Blight
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Posts: 6703
Location: Halifax, NS
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yeah.. i have just called with a one-card-to-a-broadway-straight before when i felt the other guy also had the same straight. since there was no pair on board or flush draw, who would bet anything but the straight? i figured, what's the point of just increasing the rake? turns out he didn't have the straight and i was kicking myself for not extracting a bit more money.
i would really like to see this implemented... it could even be that only the winners' portion is deducted. IE if three people are involved, and two tie, only 1/3 of the pot is raked.
only thing is that this could really screw up raking on omaha8 and stud8 because so many pots will be split. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CitizenCain
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 2022
Location: Behind a huge stack of chips.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In fact, Full Tilt should only charge a rake on pots where I don't win or split.
Come on. Paying a rake is the price you pay for not setting up your own multi million dollar poker infrastructure. And considering that online rakes are generally much lower than casino rakes, there's really no reason to complain that you lose a dollar to the rake every once in a blue moon when you get an all in split. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjpregler
Forum Pro
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 1449
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
another example:
PokerStars Game #7304176282: Hold'em No Limit ($0.01/$0.02) - 2006/12/04 - 21:55:20 (ET)
Table 'Gaika II' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 2: jjpregler ($6.03 in chips)
Seat 3: islander52 ($0.65 in chips)
Seat 4: QuagmireFG ($1.89 in chips)
Seat 5: lindaiyu ($4.94 in chips)
Seat 6: Whisper5 ($1.51 in chips)
Seat 7: stripclbking ($4.83 in chips)
Seat 8: NewBaz ($3.80 in chips)
Seat 9: laurden ($3.28 in chips)
wyllchan has timed out
wyllchan: is sitting out
jjpregler: posts small blind $0.01
islander52: posts big blind $0.02
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to jjpregler [As Ad]
QuagmireFG: raises $0.06 to $0.08
lindaiyu: folds
Whisper5 has timed out
Whisper5: folds
Whisper5 is sitting out
stripclbking: folds
NewBaz: folds
Whisper5 has returned
laurden: folds
jjpregler: raises $0.16 to $0.24
islander52: folds
QuagmireFG: raises $1.65 to $1.89 and is all-in <~~ $1.89
jjpregler: calls $1.65
*** FLOP *** [9d 5d 4d]
*** TURN *** [9d 5d 4d] [5c]
*** RIVER *** [9d 5d 4d 5c] [4c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
jjpregler: shows [As Ad] (two pair, Aces and Fives)
QuagmireFG: shows [Ac Ah] (two pair, Aces and Fives)
jjpregler collected $1.83 from pot <~~~ $1.83 out
QuagmireFG collected $1.82 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $3.80 | Rake $0.15
Board [9d 5d 4d 5c 4c]
Seat 2: jjpregler (small blind) showed [As Ad] and won ($1.83) with two pair, Aces and Fives
Seat 3: islander52 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: QuagmireFG showed [Ac Ah] and won ($1.82) with two pair, Aces and Fives
Seat 5: lindaiyu folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Whisper5 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: stripclbking folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: NewBaz folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: laurden (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
