You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
rake in split pots
The_Don90
Member Posts: 9,751
in Poker Chat
I tried to do a little research on this before posting and see its discussed to the hilt in many poker forums so this isn't exactly a new problem.
However its one I want to highlight, and one I will accept that Sky Poker is a business to make money but I hope that at the powers at be will accept my arguements. That said I'm also aware that theres other things at play here behing the scenes with the business and the group that its owned by so I guess I'm writing in hope.
Im going to add a hand here to highlight my point, now this hand will look like a BBY but its the easiest one to find in the HH because I know exactly how much rake I paid, there are other spots like this - in a session ill have a few split pots per session usually straights are a good example where both players are holding KQ for example on a TJAXXr board.
The above hand is an extreme example, its two regs clashing who're both having a good session and on this specific table are deep thus this ends as over a 350bb pot, which at 7.5% rake about 82p is taken off - 20BB for this level. Now the 7.5% rake i know back in the day has been discussed loads, I'm not going to argue this overly much I've learnt to accept it. So each of us have paid 41p rake in this pot. 10.25bb each. To put that into context I've heard pro players saying at NL2 on Stars 15BB/100 would be crushing that level, Nl4 is skys equivelent stars is a little harder but also according to the comparisson sites i can find (because for some reason my internet doesnt let me on the pokerstars website i cant confirm but theres a few with this) stars charge 3.5% rake at nl2. Thus Id say 15bb/100 winrate on nl4 at sky would also probably be considered to be crushing in 2021.
So it takes 2 hands like the above per 100, to take a large winner to being a consistent loser. This in turns delays or even prevents regs from moving up, and recs when they have good sessions wont win as much meaning theyll go through their "poker" money faster, and thus come off the site and do their other hobbies till they have more poker money. If the reg moves up great for sky their now playing nl10 where their pots are bigger, the rake remains at 7.5% meaning they will pay more money per hand they play guarenteed, and similar at nl20 where the rake drops to 5% but i imagine much easier to hit the rake cap on a consistent basis - infact if my maths is right every full stack all in and call should trigger the cap at nl20 and above. Thus meaning that reg is now paying more take than they would at nl4 consistently. The recs benefit because they lose money slower, meaning they stay on the site for longer, which in turn means theyll pay more rake over time. I also believe that having a better rake structure would probably encourage more players to come and play on sky, regs and recs.
To compare to live, and i cant find much for online on this, but neither of the big two casinos in the UK to my knowledge (certainly my local ones didnt last time i was there) do not charge rake for split pots in their cash games. And obviously when playing the larger stakes that are the minimum live, then the rake is less of an issue compared to pot size.
This will be a problem across the levels, but its even more dangerous in a level where the stakes are low such as the uber micros like nl4, with a high rake structure. Using the above hand as an example Ive hope ive been able to example how easy it is for players to pay over 10bb in rake and losing money from a pot, to compare the same pot at nl20 at 300bb would be raked by the cap and split being about 4bb per player which would hurt a win rate at that level too. As we go up the stakes this is less and less of a problem because the rake cap will hit easier and easier if this makes sense hense why its more a problem for the lower levels.
I hope I've been able to put forward a fair arguement for not raking split pots, and i believe that by not doing so could benefit Sky Poker as a business in the long run, altho I won't pretend to understand the insides of this but by giving up a few 41p's now could generate more £1.60s down the line.
However its one I want to highlight, and one I will accept that Sky Poker is a business to make money but I hope that at the powers at be will accept my arguements. That said I'm also aware that theres other things at play here behing the scenes with the business and the group that its owned by so I guess I'm writing in hope.
Im going to add a hand here to highlight my point, now this hand will look like a BBY but its the easiest one to find in the HH because I know exactly how much rake I paid, there are other spots like this - in a session ill have a few split pots per session usually straights are a good example where both players are holding KQ for example on a TJAXXr board.
| Player | Action | Cards | Amount | Pot | Balance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ytyffjgkj | Small blind | £0.02 | £0.02 | £7.14 | |
| HayleyR27 | Big blind | £0.04 | £0.06 | £4.98 | |
| Your hole cards |
| ||||
| The_Don90 | Raise | £0.12 | £0.18 | £8.84 | |
| JARLOP | Fold | ||||
| nilkse1 | Call | £0.12 | £0.30 | £2.82 | |
| bbritnell | Call | £0.12 | £0.42 | £4.48 | |
| ytyffjgkj | Raise | £0.54 | £0.96 | £6.60 | |
| HayleyR27 | Fold | ||||
| The_Don90 | Call | £0.44 | £1.40 | £8.40 | |
| nilkse1 | Fold | ||||
| bbritnell | Fold | ||||
| Flop | |||||
| |||||
| ytyffjgkj | All-in | £6.60 | £8.00 | £0.00 | |
| The_Don90 | Call | £6.60 | £14.60 | £1.80 | |
| ytyffjgkj | Show |
| |||
| The_Don90 | Show |
| |||
| Turn | |||||
| |||||
| River | |||||
| |||||
| ytyffjgkj | Win | Straight to the 9 | £6.75 | £6.75 | |
| The_Don90 | Win | Straight to the 9 | £6.75 | £8.55 | |
So it takes 2 hands like the above per 100, to take a large winner to being a consistent loser. This in turns delays or even prevents regs from moving up, and recs when they have good sessions wont win as much meaning theyll go through their "poker" money faster, and thus come off the site and do their other hobbies till they have more poker money. If the reg moves up great for sky their now playing nl10 where their pots are bigger, the rake remains at 7.5% meaning they will pay more money per hand they play guarenteed, and similar at nl20 where the rake drops to 5% but i imagine much easier to hit the rake cap on a consistent basis - infact if my maths is right every full stack all in and call should trigger the cap at nl20 and above. Thus meaning that reg is now paying more take than they would at nl4 consistently. The recs benefit because they lose money slower, meaning they stay on the site for longer, which in turn means theyll pay more rake over time. I also believe that having a better rake structure would probably encourage more players to come and play on sky, regs and recs.
To compare to live, and i cant find much for online on this, but neither of the big two casinos in the UK to my knowledge (certainly my local ones didnt last time i was there) do not charge rake for split pots in their cash games. And obviously when playing the larger stakes that are the minimum live, then the rake is less of an issue compared to pot size.
This will be a problem across the levels, but its even more dangerous in a level where the stakes are low such as the uber micros like nl4, with a high rake structure. Using the above hand as an example Ive hope ive been able to example how easy it is for players to pay over 10bb in rake and losing money from a pot, to compare the same pot at nl20 at 300bb would be raked by the cap and split being about 4bb per player which would hurt a win rate at that level too. As we go up the stakes this is less and less of a problem because the rake cap will hit easier and easier if this makes sense hense why its more a problem for the lower levels.
I hope I've been able to put forward a fair arguement for not raking split pots, and i believe that by not doing so could benefit Sky Poker as a business in the long run, altho I won't pretend to understand the insides of this but by giving up a few 41p's now could generate more £1.60s down the line.
Comments
Some great points raised there - hopefully the powers that be will take notice.
Personally, I play micorstakes cash tables on Unibet poker purely because the rake is only 2% with a 50c cap at 4NL tables.
At least we're getting industry leading software in return for paying an industry leading level of rake...
It does seem seems crazy that your balance can be less after winning in a sharing a pot.
Maybe it was something that was overlooked when the software was first compiled.
1%2% (on Unibet), is much better for everyone - The recs' money lasts longer, and the regs win more and can potentially move up (as opposed to just being micro regs for eternity).3-4%, even 5% would keep more players on Sky for micros instead of going elsewhere, meaning you make back that lost rake because more games are running, people play other stuff in the same session etc.
---
Slight tangent but the ridic rake at micros is also why nobody will ever play PLO8 cash on here - 7.5% rake in a game where the most common outcomes are splitting pots and quartering is just absurd, and kills any possibility of having any lower stakes PLO8 cash action. The games available only go up to 20PLO8, which very few people are going to bother playing, especially when they can't dip their toe in the water at a more affordable level.
People might consider playing higher stakes PLO8 because the rake cap is still £1.80, and there's more people at higher stakes who are likely familiar/competent at PLO8, so I'm not sure why those games aren't offered on here. Lobby clutter isn't really relevant here as I suspect most people will have their filters set to NLH anyway.
Same goes for PLO - Equities are so close that consistently having 60/40s and being on the wrong end of a couple of 40/60s with 7.5% rake makes the games not worth playing below a certain point. 20PLO is the most popular level, probably because 5% rake means the games aren't just setting fire to money and some recs can still afford to play.
In both cases, there really needs to be heavily reduced (or even 0) rake when the 'jump start' promo would usually apply, to encourage people to start games, and some kind of compromise on rake that makes the games worth playing once the table is full.
Dropping the rake % would make micro non-NLH stuff viable for regs to start tables, and recs to join.
You mention a good point when it comes to the "jump start" promo however. I rarely play short handed, theres 3 reasons I do.
1. Minimum tables running is below when i usually play and all other tables are full so I can fill a table fairly quickly, this is common if I do a morning session.
2. A table has died and the minimum amount of tables left is what I'd play and Im desperately trying to keep this one running - comming in late night sessions.
3. Table died and the player left is worth playing HU for a little it. This almost never happens,
The reason 3 almost never happens is because of the edge required to beat the rake is insane. Usually with 1 or 2 ill lowball and attempt to encourage the opponent to keep pots small, its not about beating them its about getting more people to sit at the table. With the rake cup HU is better than 3 handed, because the rake cap reduces to 18.5bb compared to the 35bb in a 3 handed pot. Granted at nl4 i reckon ive only ever had a pot big enough for the full £1.40 hit on maybe 1 or 2 occassions. And all of those i imagine are 6 handed as results a cooler where both players want to get 250bb in each and have 250bb in their stack. But as seen above its not overly hard to be close to that. At nl10 this is a 14bb cap which compared again to nl20 is 9bb cap.
But heres the other issue. Its rounded (understandably so) to the nearest pence. So lets say at nl4 it folds to sb who limps. a bet takes it down on that flop. 1p rake is charged as the minimum. which is fair. Theres no other level on the site, or anywhere in the word that i know of that has a situation where 12.5% of the pot is raked. This again makes HU nl4 very unappealing because how many of our pots are getting to 20p to meet the 7.5% criteria. Now for a reg we have to assess ourselves at 12.5% edge just to break even, for a rec its burning money. Reality is nobody, the reg, the rec, or sky wins here. Unless your getting a table to at least 4 handed very very quickly and certain of it. Short handed Nl4 is like taking pound notes outside and sticking them on your November bonfire, for both parties playing
I don't ever recall playing on a site that hasn't raked split pots. It's one of those things you don't tend to notice so much but playing live it's more annoying when they hand you a 50p chip you can't use.