View Single Post
  #1  
Old 11-19-2007, 02:18 AM
PokerEveryDay PokerEveryDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 813
Default 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?
Reply With Quote