Greetings,I just wrote a letter to Pokerstars with respect to the rake in their ultra micro-limit games. I'm including my letter with the hope that it might compel a couple of other posters to follow suit. My argument is that rakes approaching 10% are self-defeating for both the player and the site. When new players are forced to endure both suffocating rake and skilled opponents, they will be left with a bad taste in their mouth as their limited bankrolls quickly wither on the vine. I think this constitutes a bad business practice if you want new players to stick around and eventually pay more rake at the higher limits. I've included my letter just in case anybody finds it useful in constructing their own arguments. Before concluding, I should apologize in advance to Ryan if I accidentally mischaracterized his position on Pokerstar's rake. I know he's talked about this same issue in one of his vids and I think I accurately portrayed his vantage point. I've included a copy of my letter at the bottom of this post.Thank you,Jeffrey Greetings, My name is Jeffrey I'm writing with regards to the rake on your microlimit HUSNG's. Whilst I love your site and have few complaints, I can't help but criticize your rake structure for one and two dollar (or Euro) games. And I'm not the only who has taken notice. Rypac13, who created the popular training site HUSNG, will not make training videos for 2.20 HUSNG's as he argues the rake is prohibitive. He argues new players (at Pstars) should only play at 5.25 or higher. And others have talked about this issue as well on 2+2 and other sites. I think a 10 percent rake is absurd and only convinces newcomers that the game is unbeatable. I've sent you many letters on this matter and I laud your decision to implement the normal rake structure on the $2 4-man HUSNG's. Unfortunately, this is not the normal entry point for the newest players. Furthermore, it makes little sense to give a rebate to players who often play two games for the price of one. It should be noted that the rake on the Euro games comes out to about 7.5 percent for their turbos. While this is an improvement, it's still too oppressive. I think the 5 percent standard is a fair price point. At this price point, good players will be rewarded for their hard work and marginal players will not be annihilated by the rake. I'm convinced that the high rake is actually self-defeating and costs Pokerstars more money in the long-term than they rake in the short-term. When a new player is confronted with the one-two punch of experienced opponents and high rake, they might develop a negative first impression of Pokerstars. It would seem more rational to offer the usual rake so these players can experiment and become acclimated to the game. Thank you, Jeffrey
We do have some $1 and $2 videos.While I do feel the way you do, that they should just rake it 5% like every other game, in the end it just becomes a major variable in my (and other people's) advice to lower stakes players on which games to play.For example, once in awhile you'll have players telling us that they have $40 and they want to play husngs and not play money. Well, under 8 buyins for the $5 games is not good. At the $1 or $2 games, you may be raked 10%, but at least you are likely to have a longer length of survival compared to playing the $5.But I do agree that the rake should be lowered for those games. It shouldn't even really impact Stars much. I would eliminate a $2 buyin and create a $1 + .05. It' better than play money for the site, and it still provides plenty of incentive to move to the $5, as even a heater isn't going to be worth a lot in a recreational player's eyes compare to what they can do at the $5 or higher buyins.We do have some micro leakfinders I think though. I believe Fydor has reviewed a few $1 and $2 level games that wree posted on this site. I don't think anybody has actually made a video playing at these levels though, but I could be wrong.No offense taken, the odds of it impacting me (the part about me not being 100% correct) are extremely low and if my position on this mattered in the least bit (it does not) to anybody at Stars I'd expect any reasonable thinker to email me about it to speak personally rather than make assumptions from another person's email. So no issue at all with you mentioning me in there. Being uptight about non consequential stuff is a bad trait to have, both in poker and in life.Good luck with the rake reducing in those games, I think it's a good idea.
Greetings Ryan,Thanks for chiming in and offering your feedback on Pokerstar's rake schedule as well as the information re: HUSNG's videos for microstake limits. I wasn't aware that you had videos below $5 until I just remembered a microstake Fydor_8 video, which I must have watched several days ago. Your advice in one of the videos prompted me to reconsider playing these microlimit games. It's a strange situation where you don't want to call an unknown's open shove with premium hands because the rake has such a distorting influence on these games. The tactics of modifying ones play to account for the rake are rarely discussed. I'm sometimes left guessing what to do based on rake considerations. More or less I've been forced to play a 'Cog Dissonance' style game where I force a postflop game if possible.I've often wondered how rake (even at 10's or 5,000's) should factor into one's strategy. There are so many funky situations that arise during the course of game play. I think I've become more adept at these high-rake low limit games by trying to maximize my advantage post flop and not getting into unnecessary gambles--even if I'm a slight favorite or at even odds. For me, paying the higher rake and possibly even being at a disadvantage wasn't a terrible idea as I've been trying to unlearn some self-defeating behaviors. If a player cannot (or will not) control their emotional issues, they will inevitably foul things up. Emotional intelligence is just as important as raw intellect when it comes to poker. I know a took some HH reviews from you, Primo, and another member here (in 2010). Whilst I extracted a lot of value out of them, I simply couldn't implement what I learned properly as there were behavioral issues that needed serious correction. My stubborn core ideologies were undermining a rational assessment of certain situations. You made one point that was especially compelling: "Being uptight about non consequential stuff is a bad trait to have, both in poker and in life." I'm somebody who has a genetic predisposition towards worry/anxiety. And it's good to be cognizant of that. In fact, I think all poker players would be best off if they were honest with themselves and recognized their neurotic quirks and idiosyncracies. I'm trying to not care about the outcome of matches and simply focus on playing better poker. The preliminary results are promising. It's not so much what happens in life or on the poker table that matters, it's what we think about what happens that dictates our consequences. Thanks again,Jeffrey
Nice post.Holding yourself to a higher standard of play in game is probably an unintended consequence of focusing on the higher rake % in this game, but it's a good consequence if it makes you play better overall. Based on your post, it sounds like you take decisions seriously and that's a great habit to build.I think modifying your play is not something that should be done in these games, but probably more of just having to win at a higher rate (it gives you a smaller margin for error playerbase difference possibilities aside) to beat the rake.It could be true theoretically that a high stakes player with a good 4% ROI in a turbo speed match might consider passing up on a few spots they would normally take, but realistically there aren't many, if any, players that will really see the difference of those spots in game (talking about a 51% vs 53% spot, though to truly work this out long hand you'd look at your chip EV in a specific situation).Essentially you'll learn as much as possible to put yourself into as many good situations as possible and you'll be wrong along the way. This rake format allows you to be wrong less often (assuming opponents are about the same skill on average which is probably a fair assumption).