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.
|