What was the buy-in? If it was $50 or less, it doesn't sound too surprising, low buy-in tourns typically have a pretty large rake, percentage wise. The cut tends to get lower as the price goes up. For example, if that was a $125 buy-in I would expect the prize pool to be closer to $2,000. But if that was a $50 buy-in, it only seems a little out of the "norm."

But any tournament should let you know the breakdown of the entry fee, how much goes to the house and staff. If you think the juice is too high, by all means, don't play it.

It is very difficult to 'make a living' playing live poker tournaments, exactly because of this. Admin fees as a percentage to total tournament buyins can really eat up the profit margins, making it very difficult for players to come out even or ahead in the long term. Where was this, and what was the buyin?

@GameChanger I hope you will forgive me but I would rather not single one card room for doing this. So far I have not found any tournament that operates on less than a 20% take. If anyone is aware of any tournament at any buy in level that doesn't do this I would like to hear about it. I have look at tournaments where the buy in is in excess of $100. but not tournaments above $300 dollars.

@Rob Please excuse me but I don't want to target any single card room as I said to Game Changer. My only reason for posting this is that I have found an awful lot of poker players do not manage money very well. This is just one example.

I will give another example that shows what I mean. Years ago the Golden Nugget offered prizes for top money winners in each level of play. The important example is that there was a $1/$2 limit game with a $2 drop max. After a week of play there were no winners so they had to award the prizes to those who lost the least. I hope this makes the point.

You are right though that I will not play in any tournaments in the future that take this much. If more individuals paid attention to money management card rooms would have to offer more reasonable conditions. We have seen where they have raised the drop and had to return to a lower max because players did not show up.

@The Hawk I respect that completely. Besides, it's probably very wide spread anyway, so singling out one room probably isn't a solution.

@GameChanger The solution will come about when all players recognize that it is impossible to win, in the long run, playing the lower limit games and the tournaments as now structured and refuse to play. I don't hold out much hope for that happening but it has happened in the past and proved
very successful.

this is the exact reason that I only play a handful of tourneys a year, and mostly WSOP ones where at least you can overcome the gross rake that has become normal in todays day and age of poker.

@BentonBlakeman Thank you for the information. I will consider WSOP but I have always believed poker has a social basis. It just doesn't appeal to me to play in a darkened room all by myself. More importantly I have concerns over cheating. We know there has been gross cheating in the past. One individual has been said to have gotten away with something like 11 million dollars.

What is to prevent multiple individuals playing from different locations sharing information over the telephone? I can also believe there are other methods being developed to help cheats. We shall see.

@The Hawk When I said WSOP I meant the actual World Series of Poker held in Las Vegas every summer, not the WSOP online site. The actual live WSOP tourneys during the summer have around 10-15% rake + fees (smaller as the buy in increases) but the enormous player pools allow a proficient player to theoretically overcome the rake + fees due to the large amount of "dead money" in the prize pool.

@The Hawk @BentonBlakeman With that said I should mention that if you do end up trying online poker, at least the rake there is normally right at 10% or less, and rarely ever more than 10% so it is beatable.

@BentonBlakeman Thank you for the information but I am still not convinced that on line play is not subject to various forms of cheating.

@The Hawk I agree. And just to clarify I'm not advocating playing online. I'm advocating that if you have to play tournaments that playing live tourneys during the summer at the Rio during the World Series of poker held May 27th or so until mid July will be your best value

@The Hawk There are actually a number of tourneys in Vegas with under 20% fee, for well under $300. Here are a few examples (check under buy-in details after you click the links; the buy-in and fees are broken out for you):

Wynn, Noon, $200, Fridays and Sundays.
http://www.pokeratlas.com/poker-tournament/wynn-las-vegas-200-1200pm-nl-holdem-poker-tournament

Mirage, 7pm, Fridays, $100. This is also a bounty tourney.
http://www.pokeratlas.com/poker-tournament/mirage-las-vegas-100-700pm-nl-holdem-poker-tournament

Caesar's, 2pm, $235 weekends.
http://www.pokeratlas.com/poker-tournament/caesars-palace-las-vegas-235-200pm-nl-holdem-poker-tournament

Hope that helps!

@robustus Thanks for the info. It is certainly helpful.

@BentonBlakeman I will consider this, thanks. Last year I sat to play some cash games and was surprised to see that in the 10/20 games they did not use any dollar chips. I can guess you understand the drop was $5.00. I will always wonder if anyone tipped $5.00 as I left right away.

It's funny how poker players think that they are getting ripped off if the house doesn't give them all of the entry fees as prize money. Look, these places are in the business to make money so realize that there are cost involved in setting up any reputable poker tournament. The dealers aren't working for free either and I know that poker players are the worst tippers so please cry me a river. Tell me where else can you pay $100.00 to win $10k ??? BINGO?

@MikeAnderson Nobody has ever said return 100 percent of entry fees. As for tipping , the house take of 30 percent means very little tipping should be the norm.

Talking about how poker was before it became popular on TV is mute, because before it became mainstream it was completely understood by everyone in poker that if you stiffed the house or the dealers you weren't going to be doing anymore winning, but since its mainstream and there is millions of people playing on the regular, winners don't always understand the concept of taking care of the people who put in the time and effort to host the tournament the house is forced to take a larger rake, because nobody is working in poker for free, if you calculate by the down which is everytime a dealer push goes through typically every 30 minutes your dealer is making $3.00 every table that means they are making less than minimum wage or $6 guaranteed per hour the "house" takes extra because they pay the cost of everything else the tables, chairs, advertisement, managers, food and drink service and if nobody tips the dealers they add to the dealer pool so sometimes they still lose money, because really good dealers are not going to tolerate making less than minimum wage and having competent staff is really important and ensures fairness in play, most tournaments are run in the hope that the winner will ensure the dealers make more than $6 an hour so when you stiff on the tip you are insulting everyone who works in poker, enjoy your luck 🍀 at the tables.

@MikeAnderson The casinos must love you if you think a 36% house take is just doing business. Assuming 25 players @ $100, that's charging $900 to run 1-3 tables for a couple hours, their cost is well covered. Cash game tables don't even rake close to that much.

Nobody is saying the rooms shouldn't make money, but taking advantage of the rake because rec players don't pay attention is hardly 'reputable'. That's why gaming has rules on how much the house has to pay back for most casino games.

@thamster BTW 36% hold is worst than pretty much every bet in the casino. May as well play slots, your odds are better.