Who pays the rake?

One player will be left actually. His stack will be substantially smaller than it would have been if not for the rake. 😏

You're missing the point.

Can you explain more about the 'unseen pathways' and 'talking past the sale' fallacies?

How do you come to that conclusion? If there was no rake then such a played would still have some chips left at the end of his session, rather than being cleaned out.

A 'session' does not last a particular length of time. He means the guy always plays until he runs out of money. With lower rake he would play longer, but not have more money at the end.

Sure - but that assumes that the player plays until he goes broke, which was not stated.

Yes it was stated, right in the post you quoted!

"... hypothetical but unrealistic scenario that a player loses every chip every session played... "

Lol okay sure, my bad. What I should have said was that he gets to play some more hands when there is no rake.

What chillrob said 😉

Exactly!

Why are you all making this so damn complicated? Everyone who puts money in the pot pays. Simple.

No. If you never win a pot, you definitely never pay rake. You don't even notice or care what the rake was.

So why is the rake less if there are less people in the pot? Surely that means that more people = more rake = each player pays the rake?

Mostly because those hands take less time, meaning the house can make about the same amount per hour while charging less per hand.

Ah okay yeah, didn't think of that - makes sense now, thanks.

You pay blinds, which contribute some small percentage towards the rake.

You always pay the rake.

I don't think you read my comment you replied to if you think that has anything to do with it.

Anyway, you don't pay blinds every hand.

Really this argument can't be proven by any side; there is really no right or wrong answer, it just depends on how you look at it.

I think those of you who have played mostly online poker think of everyone contributing because that is the way the rakeback is calculated.

But for people who play higher limit live poker, this comes up when discussing whether rake or time charge is better for particular players.
The generally accepted opinion is that rake is better for tight players and time charge is better for loose players.

Right, you calculate your contribution to the rake only when you're in the blinds and fold. By always I didn't mean every hand, but every time your money goes into the pot.

Nobody here is trying to calculate anything; this is all a theoretical discussion.

If you're playing live anywhere in the USA except the LV Strip, almost all raked games will also have a jackpot drop.

The jackpot itself isn't too far from 0 EV, though with insane variance. But most of the extra $2 goes to a "promo fund," not the actual jackpot. The casinos use it to entice people to show up and play during slow hours.

In many cases, if you play during popular hours, your EV from the "jackpot" is close to $-2 per pot. Your effective rake, net of jackpot, is then around $-8. About 75% goes to the house, and the remaining 25% mostly to retirees who show up weekday mornings to sit in the smallest games available. They limp their entire range, check it down, and only build the pot to the minimum size necessary to hit the "promos," which usually is lower than the point where the rake caps out.

So to answer the question, you and the fish you're trying to stack are both paying a lot of rake, about $2 per hand higher than you might think. The old guy who wakes up at 5 a.m., and expects his $100 buyin to last all day, is paying less than half of that. Have fun subsidizing his retirement!

I'm not reading 71 replies but the winner of the hand pays the rake lol

In a rake free heads up game let's say both players start with 1k

1st hand is dealt and each put 100 into the pot. Player 1 wins.

Rake free stack sizes:
Player 1: 1100
Player 2: 900

Now replay the hand but with $5 rake

Raked stack sizes:
Player 1: 1095
Player 2: 900

The losing player has the same amount of money. The winning player has $5 less. The winning player pays the rake

No, they paid $2.50 each.

Looking at it from a backwards perspective, if only winners pay the rake, then we are also implying that winners pay for everything in a casino. Because rake pays for the free food benefits, the staff, and the casino operation. So if only winner pays the rake, then only winners are indirectly supporting an entire operation.

If that makes sense, what if we remove all the losers from the equation, then who pays for all the fees? The winners of course.

Are winners still winners if they are walking away with less money than they started?

And if you simplify all the runaround BS and define paying as "out of pocket," then it's pretty clear that only losers pay the rake.

And if you extrapolate this context to winning vs losing players as a whole, it's even more clear that losing players pay for everything. They are quite literally the only ones paying for anything. Winners are just the one cutting the checks.

Right, player 1 paid the rake...with player 2's money. So who's actually paying?