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.
|