ITH Poker Forum

[GWL666]

How much is the rake?

Cro

Oops, he said after rake, not before rake, so rake is effectively irrelevant.

The thing is this is just stupid. You are trying to win $60 in an hour. Over the hour, you will win some hands and lose some hands, some of the winners will be in hands where you posted blinds, some will be losers in hands where you didn't post blinds.

The whole 'blinds' red herring is just that. Your result is what you finish at the end of a session.

In 666s world, when someone asks him in this hypothetical game how he got on, he won't respond he won $60, he'll presumably go "I lost $30, lost $15, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, I lost $30, lost $15, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing,I lost $30, lost $15, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing,I lost $30, lost $15, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, I won $240"

It's a bit like a golfer being asked what he scored today, and promptly describing every shot around 18 holes (which admittedly does happen sometimes anyway ) rather than just 'I was 2 under' or whatever....

I have been in many games where I have nothing to play in an hour and fold the SB and BB to a raise. And, naked bluffs were not part of this example.

This was just an example to show that to earn 1 big bet per hour, you have to win more that 1 big bet per hour. In this example, you had to win $243 in one hour to earn 1 big bet of $60.

If this is intuitive to everyone at this site, I apologize for the post; but, again I posted this because of an argument with a famous author who did not see the cost because everyone must put in the blinds, so in his opinion you are “a priori net zero” in the blinds.

Again, to earn at least 1 $60 big bet per hour, you must have net winnings (pot minus rake = net winnings for that hand) equal to all the chips you put in the pot plus 1 big bet of $60. And, the minimum would be $240 (net winnings) if you folded every hand but the last in that hour. This becomes your minimum bench mark for the $30/$60 game. Your bench marks change depending on the level you are playing at, e.g. at $5/$10 it would be less.

[jeffnc]

The whole 'blinds' red herring is just that. Your result is what you finish at the end of a session.

Right. That's why the OP's math is flawless (it's trivial to calculate a fixed "cost" like blinds) but at the same time arbitrarily contrived and pretty much meaningless. It was a gross vs. net calculation where some easy constants were arbitrarily plugged in, but the tough and interesting variables were represented by a black hole or black box.

It would be sort of like saying that as a purveyor of some product, you netted $50,000 profit last year. Your cost of raw materials was $10,000. So you present:

(total revenue) - $10,000 - (all the other costs of doing business except raw materials) = $50,000

Then saying Eureka! Then when someone inevitably alludes to the complexities of "all the other costs", tell them they can't understand simple math.

[jeffnc]

And, when you are playing at a nine player table, the rake is known. If the table becomes short, then of course the rake will be less.

First, you need to work on your quoting, so we know what you're saying. I believe it got this right.

You are saying the rake is "known". Yes and no. In live limit poker, the rake is a step function and the step function for the rake is known. That is much different than saying you know the actual value of the rake in dollar amounts. If you think it's easy , I'd really like to see you plug it into your original equation. The easier thing to do is pull some arbitrary dollar amount per hand and apply that, but that's just a rough guess.

[GWL666]

And, when you are playing at a nine player table, the rake is known. If the table becomes short, then of course the rake will be less.

First, you need to work on your quoting, so we know what you're saying. I believe it got this right.

You are saying the rake is "known". Yes and no. In live limit poker, the rake is a step function and the step function for the rake is known. That is much different than saying you know the actual value of the rake in dollar amounts. If you think it's easy , I'd really like to see you plug it into your original equation. The easier thing to do is pull some arbitrary dollar amount per hand and apply that, but that's just a rough guess.

I have a great idea? Please close this post to any future posts.

I have tried my best to expalin the concept of breakeven analysis. My point was that you must have net winnings far in excess of 1 Big Bet per hour to earn one big bet per hour, which apparently everyone here new intuitively.

It has been a pleasure discussing this. I will not be posting to this OP or to any responses to my OP going forward from this point in time. My positon is adequately stated in the post above.

Thank you.

[fatshaft]

If this is intuitive to everyone at this site

I think it is. I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks to achieve a win rate of $xx, all you need to do is win a hand of that value. It's a constantly changing figure that goes up and down as the game progresses.

[Damien]

And, when you are playing at a nine player table, the rake is known. If the table becomes short, then of course the rake will be less.

First, you need to work on your quoting, so we know what you're saying. I believe it got this right.

You are saying the rake is "known". Yes and no. In live limit poker, the rake is a step function and the step function for the rake is known. That is much different than saying you know the actual value of the rake in dollar amounts. If you think it's easy , I'd really like to see you plug it into your original equation. The easier thing to do is pull some arbitrary dollar amount per hand and apply that, but that's just a rough guess.

I have a great idea? Please close this post to any future posts.

I have tried my best to expalin the concept of breakeven analysis. My point was that you must have net winnings far in excess of 1 Big Bet per hour to earn one big bet per hour, which apparently everyone here new intuitively.

It has been a pleasure discussing this. I will not be posting to this OP or to any responses to my OP going forward from this point in time. My positon is adequately stated in the post above.

Thank you.

Bravo! (And I'm not being sarcastic). GWL, this is one of the first posts I've seen from you that was calm, collected, and completely rational and not at all disrespectful. You set out to explain a concept, and after realizing that the explanation was unneccessary because we all already understand the concept, you gracefully post the above. I really hope we are seeing a new side, there may be hope for you yet as a contributing member of this forum. Remember, this is a close-knit community and even though we sometimes disagree, we always strive to show respect to one another. Keep this up and who knows... maybe we'll all be laughing about your notorious entrance into the community in 6 months time.

Hopefully you haven't burned too many bridges. If you continue to turn your tone down a couple of notches, without relapsing into the abrasive GWL we've come to know, I'll forgive and forget. I can only speak for myself however.

[jeffnc]

... maybe we'll all be laughing about your notorious entrance into the community in 6 months time.

Hopefully he will stick around and we can meet us in person at the next ITH convention in Las Vegas.