Keepin' It Real: Live Tournament Rake and Structures

In the words of the immortal Ali G, and partially inspired by Daniel Negreanu’s most recent blog “Being Real,” I wanted to offer poker rooms some constructive criticism about picking a structure and rake for a tournament series.

I like the bright ambiance of the card room at Caesars Palace, and the fact that, unlike so many casinos, the poker room is far away from the annoying soundtrack of dinging penny slots. But I had some real issues with their most recent tournament series: the 5th Annual Caesars Palace Classic.

The biggest issue for me comes down to the rake, especially for the main event. The buyin is $1,000 with $100 for rake and 3% withheld from the prize pool. The $100 events had a $30 rake (plus 3% withheld), which is so high that there was no way I was going to play any of those events. The $200 events had a $40 rake, which is also high, and kept me from playing— especially since the Bellagio’s daily tournament on Friday and Saturday is a $500 + $40.

This brings me to my next gripe. Somewhere in Vegas, the following conversation is taking place in a poker room.

Well-intentioned recreational player A,“Yeah, I’m gonna go play x tournament.”

Out of towner player B, “Oh, what’s it like?”

Player A, “20 thousand starting chips.”

Player B, “Sounds awesome.”

Now of course all good players realize that the starting stack means absolutely nothing without knowing the blind structure, since the real information is how deep the effective stack is in big blinds, and what each of the levels are. For the Caesars Main Event, it started with the dramatic sounding $40k, and 400 big blinds, which is even deeper than the WSOP Main starts.

But I felt a bit hoodwinked when the blinds doubled (50/100 to 100/200 to 200/400) in the first three 40 minute levels, and there wasn’t an ante until 600/1200. So four levels in (just over two hours) the starting stack would be 67 blinds. In comparison, a $1000 + $80 Venetian Deep Stack (also with 3% withheld and including the goofy $10 “Optional” staff bonus, and .5% withheld for the series leaderboard system) starts with only $15k chips and the same starting blinds, but many additional hour-long levels such that by the fourth level the starting stack is still 75 bb. So despite starting shallower than I’d ideally like, the Venetian structure offers more play for less rake.

I also think that card rooms should offer greater transparency with the amount withheld from the prize pool. Often this info is given in miniscule print at the bottom of structure sheets. I’ve even been directly lied to by a staff member at a casino in Atlantic City and told that there was no percent withheld, when I inquired after winning a daily tournament and was deciding about the tip. In actuality it was the standard 3%.

Furthermore, while I praised Venetian’s structure above, I really dislike their “optional” staff bonus, which to me is an attempt to make the rake seem like less than it actually is. I do consider myself a fan of the Venetian Poker room, and think that their Deep Stack Extravaganza is well-run in general. The sketchy “dealer bonus” add-on is certainly not unique to the Venetian, but is the most high-profile example of this that I can think of.

For example, the Venetian’s Deep Stack Extravaganza’s info sheet lists the tournament on the 13th as $1,070. That seems like a pretty great deal, with the assumption being a $70 (+ 3% withheld) rake. One has to scroll down to the fine print to find out about the $10 staff bonus, which would obviously be extremely –EV to pass up as it’s for an additional 2,500 chips, to find out that the tournament is essentially a $1,000 + $80.

One could argue that my issues with the structures above are hypocritical, being as I still decided to play in some of the very tournaments I’m complaining about. But the fact is that I would play in even more of the series if the rake was more favorable. The rake is very relevant to a grinder’s ROI, especially in off-season poker in Vegas, which tends to have a higher percentage of grinders than in the summer. I think that the players who are continually registering for these tournaments should have more of a say in exactly the type of tournament they are playing.

What we need is for bigger name poker players to speak out in favor of transparency in rake, and for better tournament structures. This is a difficult thing to ask of the big names in poker, as they likely a lot less concerned about $10 more in rake for a $1k tournament, and perhaps do not like the idea about speaking negatively about a poker room that may be less inclined to offer them incentives in the future. I admire the fact that Daniel Negreanu spoke out about some of the EPT rules, despite his PokerStars sponsorship, and I think that the A list in poker needs to do more of that.

So what is the solution for all of the issues I have listed above? Transparency. End the staff bonuses and withholding that make it annoying for players and stakers alike, and most players who cash will tip fairly. And for the structures of tournaments in a series, why not have one reasonable structure sheet (ideally that starts at least 200 blinds deep without skipping levels) and then simply vary the level length based on the buyin. The Bellagio does this for their daily tournaments, with 25 minute levels for their $120 tournament, all the way up to hour levels for their $5,180 tourneys.

I urge poker players (particularly the bigger names) to be more vocal about calling out rakes/structures that we feel are not as good as they should be, and make it clear that we’ll play more tournaments that offer a better rake and structure.