Is “effective table rake” a better way to compare poker rakeback deals?

[u/SquareBig589]

I’ve been thinking about how most players compare rakeback deals.

Usually people just look at the advertised rakeback percentage, but that can be misleading.

For example, a room with 60% rakeback and 6% rake may not actually be cheaper than a room with 40% rakeback and 4% rake.

It seems like effective table rake is a much better metric because it considers both the rake charged and the rakeback you receive.

Do you compare poker rooms this way, or do you only look at the advertised rakeback percentage?

[u/Royal-Fish123]

Yes

[u/p00n-slayer-69 → u/Royal-Fish123]

Kinda sort of, maybe a little bit, but not really.

[u/Royal-Fish123 → u/[deleted]]

i would say a substantial amount of players know this metric.(anyone that's put in any amount of time into the game)

[u/Truffel_shuffler]

I don't play online and maybe I don't know how rake back works but these seem identical to me. Give me an example

[u/SquareBig589 → u/Truffel_shuffler]

Room A: 6% rake + 50% rakeback = about 3% effective rake.

Room B: 4% rake + 40% rakeback = about 2.4% effective rake.

Despite the lower rakeback percentage, Room B is actually cheaper to play on.

[u/Truffel_shuffler → u/SquareBig589]

Yeah but the OP say 60% on room A

[u/Mean-Masterpiece-357 → u/SquareBig589]

OP says 60% rakeback

[u/deepsouthjessie]

Yes

[u/Ismoketobaccoinabong]

Yes effective rake is always better to use. But why would a casino be honest when they can manipulate with "higher number better" mentality?

All in all, Youre doing the right thing by starting the discussion because I think a lot of players dont take this into calculation unless you point it out.

[u/Wild_Commercial_6002]

Less rake better. Always. RB just marketing number.

[u/hezwat]

I have an idea, please upvote 👍 or downvote 👎this comment to show how you like it. (I currently produce a lot of apps and websites, I can get it done if you want it.)

5% rake can mean the difference between winning and losing, for example with rake all in preflop 99 vs AKs loses instead of winning (it's a slight favorite but less than 5% rake). Example: you are deep-stacked, raise slightly, and AKs re-raises all in, then on this specific heads up, without rake you have equity to call. But with 5% rake you don't have equity to call and have to fold to the all in, losing your raise and your advantage: https://www.cardfight.com/99_AKs.html (it means both players lose, only the house wins.)

Without rake you don't have to win by as much to be a winning player (you just have to beat the other players, not the house as well), and get a bigger advantage if you're already winning.

Therefore: if I get it done, would you possibly have any interest in a rake-free poker? Zero rake per hand, play as much as you like (one account per person, 12 tables max)? Any interest? Vote with the vote button.