Upcoming Rake Increases

Hi everyone,

We’re making some changes to our ring game rake on Thursday, August 8th. Low stakes tiers will remain exactly as they are now, but medium and up are all seeing increases to their maximums.

Rake was initially included on our platform to give the games a more realistic feel. Until recently, we hadn’t viewed it as as an essential part of balancing our economy, or to subsidize chips that we pay in prizes.

After looking closely at our poker room’s economy, we’ve concluded that the ecology would benefit from a more dynamic rake system.

As many of you have pointed out, we recognize the need to keep Replay Poker’s economy under control. As chips continue to enter the economy over time, it can lead to a form of inflation. In looking at our data, we do see that the average balance of daily active users has steadily increased over the last two years. This means that if someone were to make two different purchases, one later than the other, the second purchase would effectively get less value if there are significantly more chips in play.

The main method that we have to remove (or drain) chips from the economy is by rake in ring games and fees taken from tournaments. After comparing Replay to other sites, which have just increased stake sizes and offered larger chip packages, we’ve decided to address the issue by managing growth, but without suffocating it.

Some ring game levels are often contributing maximum rake with just three players seeing the flop, which indicates that it’s too low. For example, 2k/4k is capped at 500 chips, even when the pot is 12,000 pre-flop. This volume of players limping and seeing flops is common on Replay Poker at all but Elite stakes.

Our rake structure will remain the same. Rake taken is 5% of the matched bets in a pot, with a maximum set for each blind level. “No flop, no drop” – any hand ending before the flop is not raked.

We’ve detailed the full list of changes below, but please let us know if you have any questions.

We encourage you to check out our blog post on bankroll management and keep this in mind when you choose your game tables. This will minimize the effect any rake changes have on the variance you experience.

image

12 Likes

It is good to see that the site has been looking at this issue and is taking steps to manage the economy. The adjustments are probably small enough that the average player won’t even notice that anything has changed but are large enough in percentage terms that they should have some impact. Future adjustments could be made in a similar way, as needed.

My confidence in the long-term success of the site has been greatly increased by this news. Well done and thank you.

7 Likes

If RP were to create a bin for players like myself who have never paid for chips, to dump some chips into, I for one would gladly do so. Granted I have been chastised for making such an offer, but the offer was made with genuine intentions and was with a desire to provide a way for players not concerned about rankings, or chip stacks, who don’t buy chips, to “give back” to RP and help address chip inflation. I certainly don’t NEED all the chips I have been given, either by RP or other players.

At one time I had considered “dumping” them to somebody else at a heads up, one hand, ring game, BUT there was a discussion about collusion and it seemed the general consensus was that doing so constituted collusion (personally I could care less since the chips have no inherent value, unless you’ve paid for them).

I’d be happy to give some of my chips back to RP (at least half my stack, probably more) knowing that most of them were chips someone else paid for and that RP could resell into the economy a second time, maybe to the same person (of course without anybody knowing who is who).

Might even start a league for players who have never bought chips, have less than a million chips, and are ranked lower than say, 2500? Since we all can get 2500 chips a day we could start some daily tourneys with a 2500 buy-in, but you could only play one a day. Winner take ALL and then gives half back to RP?

There are ways players who have never purchased chips could help out RP address chip inflation, IF RP would make them available.

W.N.R.Y.T.Y.R.S.D. (We now return you to your regularly scheduled debauchery).

1 Like

There’s a tip jar on the bank page. Doesn’t that allow you to donate chips? I’ve never tried it myself, maybe it is, or maybe it’s for sending real money payments to keep the site running without buying play chips.

I was once directed to the “tip” jar I think you are referencing, but unless I am mistaken you can only tip IF you are buying chips and then the tip is in the form of a “tip” (money on your credit card) in addition to the chips you may be buying. If I am in error please let me know. I have no real money to give away, but chips I have in abundance and no need for all of them, in fact most of them.

Thanks for the support! There is NOT currently a way to tip by donating chips. There is a way to tip cash without purchasing chips, though perhaps counter-intuitively, it is on the “Get Chips” page:

image

Clicking that button will prompt a tip without receiving chips.

Though tipping by donating chips is not currently a feature, it’s definitely something we’ll consider. Thanks a lot for bringing that up.

2 Likes

So the most you take out from the elite stakes is 5000 for one hand over 100,000 in pot.

mark

I’ll use highest/lowest Value for question/comment…

sb 500k , bb 1m … pot size to rake max increases from 20k to 100k and then 5% of that, so 1k increasing to 5k.
sb 1 , bb 2 … pot size to rake max stays at 2000 with 5% being 100.

Now seeing the breakdown, seems in each Stakes level there should be a standard % , so that 50k/100k and 500k/1m pay different amounts, for example… but

If we look at % of BB …to… pot size to max rake… at 1/2 , its 1000x… yet at 500k/1m , its 1/10x. Perhaps a more graduated system, yet your poor players are paying huge amounts compared to your rich players.

Just like @1Warlock said, Im very pleased replay is taking a serious look at the economy as a whole. I think the increases are too small, and each stake level there shud be a std. … # of times the BB ( BBx) for the … pot size to rake max. Also that the poorest players overpay to play rings.

even as listed… 50k/100k pays 1x ( 100k ), if 500k/1m players paid the same, thier pstrx would be 1m not still only 100k… I can’t logically see how the pstrx is any number below 2.5x the BB , because at that point… 1 person has limp’d in and the BB no longer gets a free walk, thus I consider the hand “live”.

Suggestion : for pstrx ( pot size to rake max )
Low stake - 600x the BB
Med Stake - 400x the BB
High Stake - 200x the BB
Elite Stake - 100x the BB

To me it has always seem’d more than silly , to see 500k/1m players paying 1k rake to play 1 hand…; that increases to an equally silly 5k… so I’m not sure, if raising the pstrx is truly enough, or if a % of pot adjustment with NO pstrx is better. I do think its still pretty silly that a 500/1k player pays a rstrx of 10x the BB compared to a 500m/1m player that pays a rstrx of 1/10x , or that a 5/10 players pays 200x… my god, a 1/2 player pays a whopping 1000x the BB.

Perhaps I just misunderstand, if so please explain…
Sassy

1 Like

Thank you! This is definitely a step in the right direction, and I appreciate the steps you’re taking to manage inflation.

To address @Sassy_Sarah’s concern, while I agree the high/elite rakes could stand a bit of further upward adjustment, using a standard percentage across all tables is not a good idea. Rake changes the nature of the game dramatically, making it more important to win a hand preflop (so no rake will be taken), but also tightening ranges because you stand to win less when a flop is seen. The Elite players already understand this, frequently folding preflop, or betting aggressively to take it down early. On the other hand, this is a lesson that the lower-stakes players often have yet to learn, regularly limping in and seeing small “family” pots because everyone decided to flat the big blind. Encouraging more aggressive preflop play from lower stakes is a good thing.

Another thing to consider is the difficulty level at each stakes. It isn’t terribly difficult to win 10BB per 100 hands at the Duck Pond over an extended period of time, but this is nigh-impossible at Elite stakes (correct me if I’m wrong, @Ilovecat). Having substantially higher rake at the Elite stakes would make it a much more difficult place to play and be profitable, and would likely lead to less play there. The lowest stakes, despite the high rake, are still very beatable.

Finally, one should consider the practice of pay-money poker rooms. It’s often the case, both live and virtually, that max rake as a multiple of the big blind and/or rake percentage will decrease as the big blind increases. This makes sense, as it costs the house roughly the same amount to operate a $1-$2 table as it does a $100-$200 table, and they wouldn’t want to be undercut by a competitor for those higher-stakes players. Yes, I know this is a play-money rather than a pay-money site, but it’s still helpful to use it as a point of comparison.

2 Likes

I agree with most of what you’re saying but I think that the rake at the elite stakes tables (especially at the very highest stakes) is still relatively really low so I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

Also, I do think that winning at 10BB per 100 at the elite stakes would definitely be possible for some people. The best human players are still incredibly far away from being unexploitable and the players at the elite stakes here are of course far from the best players worldwide.

Ok @WannabeCoder ,

PSTRX ( pot size to max rake ) , simply caps the rake @ that value… rake stays constant @ 5% of max/pot.
on a 1/2 table that 5% ends up a maximum of 100 chips…
on a 500k/1m table that 5% ends up a maximum of 5000 chips…
According to the current adjusted values…

Wannabe, even if , as you say… the elite players know this and either fold or bet out and alot of times take the pot right there… that 5000 chips is .5% of just the big blind. Thats the capped maximum rake allowed ( for the pot size ), and its .5% of one BB. So if the pot becomes 100 million, they still pay only 5000 maximum in rake because the amount that got “taxed” was 100k, thats 10% of the BB.

Since u say I can’t compare that to lower stakes…
Take another elite stakes… 50k/100k… they have the same maximum of 100k for PSTRX , yet for them its 100% of the BB, so the 5000 chips represent 5% of the BB…

So wannabe, with all things the same, and assuming the BB gets a walk… they get 1.5 BB worth minus the rake… please explain why the 50k/100k table pays 10x as much… 150k -5k = 145k …1.5m -5k = 1.495m… @least on a std scale, 2 elite tables would pay in a % wise the same maximum… of the BB … In the High/Med Stakes breakout… of the 4 levels, 2 pay same 2 pay different… why also does elite players all pay the same ???

I seriously dont get why 1/2 players, with a pot size of 2000 ( 1000x the BB ) pay 5% ( or 100 chips ) in rake as a maximum while elite players dont… If we use 1000x the BB… then with a 1mil BB, pot size is 1bil and 5% of that is … 50mil. Even in my example they wouldnt pay that much…

And of all the low stakes levels, why are the poorest paying the most ??? the 50/100 player never pays more than 1bb as the winner , to the rake… yet the 1/2 player might pay 50x the BB , as the winner in rake.

As I aslo said Wannabe, if the PTSRX scheme isnt optimal, I understand a MTT player pays what 10% in rake up front, for all hands and we cant charge ring players 10% per hand… or can we…??? that 1/2 player IS paying 5% now on any pot =< 2000 chips… per hand !!!. how can you charge the elite player .0005%, per hand !!! ???

If you charge the poorest player 5%, and the top players .0005% for the same size pot/to BB , all your taking outta the overall economy is the freebies like “Top off” or “Daily Bonus”, you’re not putting a serious dent into all those millions of chips bought or given away thru promotions.

So if a standard PSTRZ or % of pot … rake, not only makes it fair to all players, but does a much better job at pulling outta the economy a realistic amount of chips, thus preserving the “Value” of bought chips…

I dont understand Wannabe, why dificulty means anything… I bet its kinda hard for 2 low stakes players to win from each other if they are playing a serious game, versus a high stakes player winning versus a low stakes player.The rake is independant of player skill. What really is so wrong about saying everyone just pays 2% of the winning pot to the house ??? no maximum involved, just 2% ???

Replay is slanted , site wide, for playability for Low/Med Stakes players, why isn’t the Rake itself slanted in thier favor too ??? but it isn’t… in this 1 respect its horribly slanted against those players. So if PSTRX or a flat % , were standardized, the casino ( replay ) would still increase or more fairly regulate the Rake , in terms of a drain on the total “chips in play” , site wide. … While not punishing any specific stake levels compared to the others.

Didn’t 1 thread have a comment where a top player had too many chips and wanted to donate them… thats a direct result of elite stakes not paying thier fair share in rake to Replay… plain and simple.

Sassy

This is the way of the world @Sassy_Sarah. Rake as a % of the pot is always highest at the lowest stakes. Online, rake decreases significantly as stakes go up but still remains a factor to be considered. Live, rake is eliminated entirely and replaced by a seat charge once you move up in stakes (~5/10 most places I’ve seen).

There has been an interesting debate/feud going on between Doug Polk and Daniel Negreanu on this topic if you want to see what some top pros think about it. Here is 1 article from Negraenu’s point of view: https://www.pokernewsreport.com/negreanu-fires-back-at-more-rake-is-better-critics-22647

1 Like

@1Warlock ,
I dont wanna see a debate, I thought I was asking a legitimate question that might be thoughtfully answered… a few ppl have mentioned the “economy”, not look’n for a fight either.

I was a pioneer in a debate elsewhere on site economy, so I wanted to understand better… but I always was told that live was a % of pot, I’ve play’d live rings a couple times, but have played far more MTTs ( both real cash ). paying for a seat sounds dumb.

as Replay says, the example, everyone pays 5% of the Max… I see no reason for one… But its the Max that I’m referring to, and why thats enuff (increases) to counterbalance all the freebies given out.

please and thank you,
Sassy

No flop no drop, if a hand doesn’t go to a flop there is no rake. Say 4 people limp, CO raises 6 bb’s and button 3! to 21 bb’s and everyone folds. Button wins 11.5 bb’s rake free.

I can understand the concern for the low stakes players but in reality the rake is a charge for a service that is rendered. In a casino a $1/$2 player is paying the same rake as a $10/$20 player but at a much higher percentage of the pot. The service being provided doesn’t change (isn’t supposed to typically) from stake to stake. The dealer has the same job, the casino provides the same service and really only the chip denominations change. Equal pay for equal work. My 2 cents. Cheers @Sassy_Sarah @WannabeCoder

Provided a there is a cap. I know some underground NY players who would debate this. LoL
100% true if you’re not playing in a mob game though. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Doah! This is what I was saying, I should read all the comments first if I’m going to comment.

*1) [quote=“dayman, post:14, topic:13713”]
I can understand the concern for the low stakes players but in reality the rake is a charge for a service that is rendered. In a casino a $1/$2 player is paying the same rake as a $10/$20 player but at a much higher percentage of the pot. The service being provided doesn’t change (isn’t supposed to typically) from stake to stake. The dealer has the same job, the casino provides the same service and really only the chip denominations change. Equal pay for equal work.
[/quote]

Note: Source *1) @WannabeCoder Upcoming Rake Increases thread on Replay Forums Aug 2, 2019

i also really like to finally see some steps into the right direction to reduce the inflation.
i think most have been said already, but i’ll just liked to mention this personally :+1:

1 Like

I am personally against this rake increase, because instead of winning 400 million a day, I will only make 390 million a day!

5 Likes

I haven’t seen where anyone has tossed this thought around, I’ve seen it at other sites, How about implementing a “Tip Dealer” button. Allowing those of us who appreciate a good hand, or a good finish to a game, (whatever) to donate back. ?
I know it isn’t a cure for inflation, but it will help.
Just a thought.

1 Like

I was thinking a tax hike on the ring games is a great idea. Why, I wouldn’t be opposed to 15% or even 25% rake with no limit on all ring games effective immediately. I think it’s a splendid idea. Maybe they could use the chips to drastically lower tournament fees of something.