I think rake by the hour sux
 

For the first time I payed rake by each half hour instead of the typical $4 max rake per pot. Was in Foxwoods for the first time (nice card room) and played the 2/5 NL game at $6/.50hrs. The 1/2 NL was still $5/.50hrs. but didn't have any intention of playing 1/2 anyhow.

So, lets assume for every hour you see 30 hands (or 3 orbits) even with two decks and a ShuffleMaster in use 10 handed all the time. Lets also assume your flop % is 30 plus one for a BB, which is 10 flops per hour. Out of those 10 flops you win 2 with or without a showdown. Bottom line you win 2 pots per hour which isn't bad. Each pot is an average of say $80 with $40 of that being your own money from betting.

That is $80/hr. minus (3 x $7)=$21 in blinds (lets assume we came in the pot out of the blinds each time) minus 2 x $1 for tip plus $12/hr for rake equals $45/hr or 9BB/hr. Of course that is a best case scenario I believe. Anyhow in comparison to a $4 max rake per pot, you would have only paid $8 vs. $12 assuming the rake structure at the given pots. This is worst case since $4 won't be taken each time. I'm also saying the winner of each pot is paying rake while the other players that were in the hand helped generate the rake. Therefor one would need to win at least 3 pots per hour to match the timed rake. This wouldn't matter since you would be crushing the game. I'm assuming that isn't possible to do anyhow.

Then, when your faced with a tough decision and need more time, the rake is eating you up vs. the per pot rake. In conclusion a timed rake is worse than a per pot rake. Am I missing something, or does one need to loosen up as a result of the increased rake structure?

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

that's a lot of conditions to your example. I don't know if any of that is close to being right...

You assume 30 hands an hour. So in timed rake, you pay $10 an hour, no matter what. 10 players, $100 in rake for the hour.

If pot raked, it's $120, if $4 raked per hand. But obviously for 1/2, not every hand gets raked max. If it averages $3 a hand, it's $90.

I think it's close that it's not something to worry about. Obviously the more hands you play, the more timed is better. So if you feel like with a timed raked, you want "more bang for your rake dollar", open up your starting hand range.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

I read an article some time back by some writer in CardPlayer arguing that time charges, rather than rake per pot, in the higher limits were better for the health of the game because the loose players were paying a disproportionate share of the rake (they play more pots and therefore pay more when the game is raked). So, meh, there is that for what it's worth.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

punkass, I agree with you at the end of your reply. I'm talking about me or any one player what it costs, not what the casino makes per hour. In the 2/5 game the casino is making $120/hr. not $100 with a timed rake. With a $4 max rake per pot, only the winner pays rake while the others helped generate it. So if all 30 hands/pots per hour generated the max $4 rake, then the house would also make $120/hr (not likely). This of course is better for the house, which usually means it's worse for the players. I was just giving an example of what could happen.

Whatever time you spend thinking on a hand isn't costing you vs. a timed rake. If your running into a cold deck, your losing less money in rake. Only when your on a rush will it be an advantage to have a timed rake.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

I don't really follow the OP. I kind of stopped caring when he started talking about the blinds.

BUT, I was thinking the other day that good players in NL may be 'paying' more of the rake than we think (or at least than I thought). In 1/2NL (the only NL game I'm familiar with) there are many many bad players that sit at the table until they bust.

If we tracked the rake each player 'paid' then whenever a player was stacked, the winning player assumes an amount of the rake paid for that person up until the difference in stack sizes is reached. Since if we were playing rake free the losing player would have had that money in his stack when he busted.

Obviously this isn't as applicable in limit since bad players bust much less often. They often leave with some portion of their stack.

In an extreme case where only people that have busted can leave the table and no new blood sits down the winning player paid all of the rake. In which case the player prefers whatever kept the most money on the table (rake vs. time, depending on number of players, number of hands dealt, and so on).

Obviously there are tons of complications but my gut feeling is that time isn't that much worse then rake at low limit NL for good players.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

I agree with this. A $6/down charge is equal to 24 hands/hour full rake at the $5/hand typical around here. Even at $4/hand is only 30 full rake hands.

1/2 NL generates a lot of less than fully raked hands, so the time charge is tough. At 2/5 I think it's a wash. At 5/10 or above, I think the table benefits.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]

BUT, I was thinking the other day that good players in NL may be 'paying' more of the rake than we think (or at least than I thought). In 1/2NL (the only NL game I'm familiar with) there are many many bad players that sit at the table until they bust.

If we tracked the rake each player 'paid' then whenever a player was stacked, the winning player assumes an amount of the rake paid for that person up until the difference in stack sizes is reached. Since if we were playing rake free the losing player would have had that money in his stack when he busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this logic is that you can say the same thing about the bad players stacking each other - each one is paying for the other guy's rake. So, in the end, you are still back to everyone paying the rake, and it's going to work out that the players that are in more pots (the bad plaeyers) end up paying more of it.

Your argument basically boils down to the assertion that if there's a limited pool of memory feeding into the game (the losing players stop rebuying after a certain point), then the total amount of money taken off the table affects a good player's earn - which is obviously true.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

the rake at my local casino (caesars IN) for 1/2 300max nl is $6 per half hour. you add that with tips + travel expenses (30min drive + gas + table wait)= unbeatable game which other wise would be a gold mine. sux the casino owner/crooks are the only one's making any money.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

BUT, I was thinking the other day that good players in NL may be 'paying' more of the rake than we think (or at least than I thought). In 1/2NL (the only NL game I'm familiar with) there are many many bad players that sit at the table until they bust.

If we tracked the rake each player 'paid' then whenever a player was stacked, the winning player assumes an amount of the rake paid for that person up until the difference in stack sizes is reached. Since if we were playing rake free the losing player would have had that money in his stack when he busted.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this logic is that you can say the same thing about the bad players stacking each other - each one is paying for the other guy's rake. So, in the end, you are still back to everyone paying the rake, and it's going to work out that the players that are in more pots (the bad plaeyers) end up paying more of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it applies to bad players stacking each other. But realistically, good players stack bad players more often and if player A stacks player B and then gets stacked by player C then player C assumes the rake paid by A and B.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that bad players are in more pots and thus paying more rake, but I don't think the argument is that easy to make. Its especially naive to assume that good players are only paying the rake on the hands they win, which seems to be a common sentiment I hear from people.



[ QUOTE ]

Your argument basically boils down to the assertion that if there's a limited pool of memory feeding into the game (the losing players stop rebuying after a certain point), then the total amount of money taken off the table affects a good player's earn - which is obviously true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and I think in the NL case this an approximate model of what happens on a semi-regular basis. A bad player has a small bankroll for the day and leaves when he goes broke. Obviously there are bad players that leave with money, but whenever someone gets stacked by a player with significantly more money then them, the losing player basically played rake free since they bought in.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
the rake at my local casino (caesars IN) for 1/2 300max nl is $6 per half hour. you add that with tips + travel expenses (30min drive + gas + table wait)= unbeatable game which other wise would be a gold mine. sux the casino owner/crooks are the only one's making any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very sure this is beatable. Although, I guess it depends on what your time is worth since you factored in driving time and waiting for a table.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the rake at my local casino (caesars IN) for 1/2 300max nl is $6 per half hour. you add that with tips + travel expenses (30min drive + gas + table wait)= unbeatable game which other wise would be a gold mine. sux the casino owner/crooks are the only one's making any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very sure this is beatable. Although, I guess it depends on what your time is worth since you factored in driving time and waiting for a table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure it is beatable also. My sample size is tiny and I am not a NL player but sometimes I am convinced the entire table rode to the casino together on the short bus.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

Bottom line, with a pot rake a nit can sit a whole hour and not pay any rake (fold every hand). With a timed rake he will pay $12 for that hour on top of the blinds. His blinds are the only thing that helped generate rake for the pots that he wasn't in.

On the other hand, a player who plays every hand in one hour and never wins a pot (helped generated rake that the winner took down) paid $12 more with a timed rake vs. a raked pot.

You can say the loser who never won a pot is paying rake at a raked pot structure, but comparing apples to apples he loses $12 more with a timed rake vs. a raked pot in my scenario.

Furthermore, you can figure out what you need to win in terms of BB/hour from my original post to break even.

It will cost you $33/hr to play at the table. You need to win 7BB and hour (gross) to break even assuming a couple dollars thrown in for tips. Even 10BB is only $15/hr. This is also assuming not playing from your blinds. If so, that number would be lower for the same hourly rate. Obviously pot size will be a big factor too.

I still believe a timed rake is worse than a pot rake. The casino is doing it because they know this too.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

A high rake is going to suck, no matter how you structure it.

My normal game is $5/hh (2/5 with 500 buyin). $100/hour means 25 hands to breakeven. There's no doubt in my mind that the players are winning on this, slightly.

And if the argument is that this setup doesn't favor nits, I'm in favor of it. I'd much rather not have them in my game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
And if the argument is that this setup doesn't favor nits, I'm in favor of it. I'd much rather not have them in my game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I second this!

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]

Sure it applies to bad players stacking each other. But realistically, good players stack bad players more often and if player A stacks player B and then gets stacked by player C then player C assumes the rake paid by A and B.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that bad players are in more pots and thus paying more rake, but I don't think the argument is that easy to make. Its especially naive to assume that good players are only paying the rake on the hands they win, which seems to be a common sentiment I hear from people.


[/ QUOTE ]
This all assumes that the good player has the bad player covered, which often won't be true in a capped buy-in game (especially if the bad player just stacked another bad player).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your argument basically boils down to the assertion that if there's a limited pool of memory feeding into the game (the losing players stop rebuying after a certain point), then the total amount of money taken off the table affects a good player's earn - which is obviously true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and I think in the NL case this an approximate model of what happens on a semi-regular basis. A bad player has a small bankroll for the day and leaves when he goes broke. Obviously there are bad players that leave with money, but whenever someone gets stacked by a player with significantly more money then them, the losing player basically played rake free since they bought in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the model breaks down because when a player busts, generally there is someone else who will come in to take his seat. In this sense, in a reasonably busy cardroom, there's effectively an infinite amount of money flowing to the table.

If you say that a losing player played "rake free" when he gets busted, then you are assuming that he definitely would have lost whatever extra money that he made - it's kind of like saying that the pots he won might as well be nullified, since he busted out in the end. Maybe without the rake, the bad player would have had enough money in his stack that he wouldn't have called the all-in - there's no way to be sure.

I actually still agree with your basic point - that winning players earn is affected by rake/time that bad players pay - but I think it's not as extreme of an effect as you think it is.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the first time I payed rake by each half hour instead of the typical $4 max rake per pot. Was in Foxwoods for the first time (nice card room) and played the 2/5 NL game at $6/.50hrs. The 1/2 NL was still $5/.50hrs. but didn't have any intention of playing 1/2 anyhow.

So, lets assume for every hour you see 30 hands (or 3 orbits) even with two decks and a ShuffleMaster in use 10 handed all the time. Lets also assume your flop % is 30 plus one for a BB, which is 10 flops per hour. Out of those 10 flops you win 2 with or without a showdown. Bottom line you win 2 pots per hour which isn't bad. Each pot is an average of say $80 with $40 of that being your own money from betting.

That is $80/hr. minus (3 x $7)=$21 in blinds (lets assume we came in the pot out of the blinds each time) minus 2 x $1 for tip plus $12/hr for rake equals $45/hr or 9BB/hr. Of course that is a best case scenario I believe. Anyhow in comparison to a $4 max rake per pot, you would have only paid $8 vs. $12 assuming the rake structure at the given pots. This is worst case since $4 won't be taken each time. I'm also saying the winner of each pot is paying rake while the other players that were in the hand helped generate the rake. Therefor one would need to win at least 3 pots per hour to match the timed rake. This wouldn't matter since you would be crushing the game. I'm assuming that isn't possible to do anyhow.

Then, when your faced with a tough decision and need more time, the rake is eating you up vs. the per pot rake. In conclusion a timed rake is worse than a per pot rake. Am I missing something, or does one need to loosen up as a result of the increased rake structure?

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning an average of 3 pots out of 30 in an hour of play ten-handed = crushing the game?

On average, how many pots out of 30 per hour should the average player win?

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sure it applies to bad players stacking each other. But realistically, good players stack bad players more often and if player A stacks player B and then gets stacked by player C then player C assumes the rake paid by A and B.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that bad players are in more pots and thus paying more rake, but I don't think the argument is that easy to make. Its especially naive to assume that good players are only paying the rake on the hands they win, which seems to be a common sentiment I hear from people.


[/ QUOTE ]
This all assumes that the good player has the bad player covered, which often won't be true in a capped buy-in game (especially if the bad player just stacked another bad player).

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but the majority of times the good players have the bad players out stacked. Keep in mind I'm talking 1/2NL 300max. I'd say its not uncommon to have 1 or 2 players at the table that are so bad that they'll go bust 9 times out of 10.


[ QUOTE ]

...

Except the model breaks down because when a player busts, generally there is someone else who will come in to take his seat. In this sense, in a reasonably busy cardroom, there's effectively an infinite amount of money flowing to the table.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its actually irrelevant if somebody replaces him or not. I just used the example of noone new sitting down because it makes it more clear. However, if the player is replaced it doesn't change the fact that the money the busted player paid in rake is now not in the stack of another player (even in the busted player's stack).

[ QUOTE ]

If you say that a losing player played "rake free" when he gets busted, then you are assuming that he definitely would have lost whatever extra money that he made - it's kind of like saying that the pots he won might as well be nullified, since he busted out in the end. Maybe without the rake, the bad player would have had enough money in his stack that he wouldn't have called the all-in - there's no way to be sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I am making the assumption that he would have lost that money. Or atleast that he would lose it often enough to make a difference. I don't think this is a stretch because good NL players in capped buy-in games are much more likely to have a big stack. NL is a brutal game for bad players.

[ QUOTE ]

I actually still agree with your basic point - that winning players earn is affected by rake/time that bad players pay - but I think it's not as extreme of an effect as you think it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not actually sure how big of an effect it is, I just thought of it the other day and I haven't really heard people talking about this aspect of the rake vs. time debate. I would tend to say that the obvious answer is the right answer; whatever takes the most money off the table is worse for good players (and bad). However, I really don't buy that rake costs bad players more then good players because good players generally play tighter. I do feel that any difference is made up for by the fact that that losers get stacked much more often then good players.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
Winning an average of 3 pots out of 30 in an hour of play ten-handed = crushing the game?

On average, how many pots out of 30 per hour should the average player win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning 3 pots out of seeing 10 flops is crushing the game. I think winning 2 pots per hour is good. This is an average over many sessions.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
that's a lot of conditions to your example. I don't know if any of that is close to being right...

You assume 30 hands an hour. So in timed rake, you pay $10 an hour, no matter what. 10 players, $100 in rake for the hour.

If pot raked, it's $120, if $4 raked per hand. But obviously for 1/2, not every hand gets raked max. If it averages $3 a hand, it's $90.

I think it's close that it's not something to worry about. Obviously the more hands you play, the more timed is better. So if you feel like with a timed raked, you want "more bang for your rake dollar", open up your starting hand range.

[/ QUOTE ]

id agree with this to an extent.

its close in average money leaving the table but per person it is very different.

for those who say how beatable live games are i agree with them to. but when you run super cold over a 5 hour session with braindead opponents (ie they dont fold ever) and you dont make a hand you still pay rake as opposed to just paying your blinds.

ive always hated time games because im fairly nitty in live games, esp at foxwoods (AC and vegas games are so much tighter) and i can bully the table. but in time games when im running cold im still paying with nothing coming back.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

If that's so, it may be a double edged sword. Timed games may generally play looser than raked ones.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

[ QUOTE ]
If that's so, it may be a double edged sword. Timed games may generally play looser than raked ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe so, it's just another adjustment that players need to make to the structure of the game. Blinds force action, and now with a timed rake it forces even more. The Casino doesn't care, they make a fixed hourly rate regardless. If I was a casino owner, I would have my tables a timed rake.

Now that I think of it, why use Shuffle Masters with two decks like other casinos for your timed rake tables? Why spend >$10k on a shuffler when it doesn't matter how many hands you deal per hour? It's very obvious why they use them for their limit games with a pot rake.

While I don't care for the shuffle masters, I like them in a timed rake game.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

I havent seen anyone do any math here but if at foxwoods you play the 1/2 NL with $10/hour time fees and get in about 30 hands an hour (which I believe is on the high end). It takes 3.3 hours to get 100 hands so you get raked $33

33/4 = 8.25 bb/100

lets also assume you win 10 percent of the pots while you play and tip $2 per hand. This is another 20 bucks

so you are paying $53 to play in the game per 100 hands. 53/4 or approximately 13bb/100.

This is siiiick. Not to mention that if everyone buys in for the same amount, 100bbs (200) and nobody leaves the table, rake + tip will clear the whole table in less than 400 hands or 13 hours.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

If you want to read enough about rake or drop v time to make your eyes bleed you can read this list of links to old rec.gambling.poker newsgroup posts I wrote on the subject, many of which were in discussions with the infamous Speed Racer.

Re: I think rake by the hour sux
 

I play at both Fallsview (canadian side) and Seneca Niagara (american side). Fallsview is timed rake and Seneca is a normal drop. From what i've seen I am pretty sure that the timed rake does cost me a little bit more. However I have also noticed that the timed rake loosens up the games. In games with a drop some of the smarter regulars, who are still very bad but aren't exactly whales, play a lot tighter to avoid paying as much rake. I'm not really sure if this is something that can be calculated or proven but my personal belief is that while timed rake may be slightly more expensive, it actually increases the winrate of a player like myself by encouraging more mediocre players to freely play a lot more pots. Just my $0.02.