|
|
#3
12-28-2006, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Time Charge vs. Rake
$5 per half hour means $50 for the table twice, or $100 per hour.
Generally that's the cheaper option. You can reach that in as little as 25 hands. Even seeing 3-4 orbits worth of hands you'll generally get enough rake. Also people in a time game tend to play prompter, as they know they pay per down (my experience, others will vary). 
|
|
#4
12-28-2006, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time Charge vs. Rake
At a 10 person table, a $5 per half hour charge will bring the house up to a max of $100 per hour.
If you assume 30-35 hands per hour, the max for the rake is $120/140. However, since a number of hands may not hit $40 in the pot, we have to haircut this a bit. Say $100-120. Overall, I 'think' the house does slightly better with the rake. However, if you're a tight player, the rake may cost you less, in the long run, regardless of whether it's slightly favorable to the house or not.
|
|
#5
12-28-2006, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time Charge vs. Rake
I guess I have to stop bashing foxwoods for the time charge. But I just hate hearing the retarded jokes, probably as much as every dealer.
"Time? oh it's 8:30." "There was a girl that took it from us half hour ago." My pesonal favorite "What is time?" and you lose 5 minutes as the dealer tries to explain it to the drunk idiot, who then tells the first two "jokes" to the next two dealers thinking he is clever and original. The rake is just a silent killer no one really pays attention to.
|
|
#6
12-28-2006, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time Charge vs. Rake
Depends if time is paid with a time pot or not.
If the game has a time pot, time is definitely the way to go. Time pots are +EV for solid players. But if there is no time pot I would lean towards the rake assuming there is no additional BBJ drop in there.
|
|
#7
12-28-2006, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time Charge vs. Rake
[ QUOTE ]
Depends if time is paid with a time pot or not. If the game has a time pot, time is definitely the way to go. Time pots are +EV for solid players. But if there is no time pot I would lean towards the rake assuming there is no additional BBJ drop in there. [/ QUOTE ] Pardon my ignorance, but what is a time pot? I haven't encountered this yet.
|
|
#8
12-28-2006, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time Charge vs. Rake
[ QUOTE ]
$5 per half hour means $50 for the table twice, or $100 per hour. Generally that's the cheaper option. You can reach that in as little as 25 hands. Even seeing 3-4 orbits worth of hands you'll generally get enough rake. [/ QUOTE ] You fail to account for your own looseness or tightness. If you're playing tighter than the table, you're winning fewer pots so your share of the rake isn't proportional. Of course you have no choice but to pay your share of a time charge. [ QUOTE ] Also people in a time game tend to play prompter, as they know they pay per down (my experience, others will vary). [/ QUOTE ] That's true. It's also true that, in the Foxwoods $1-2, player promptness will be more than offset by ignorant dealers who insist on figuring out every four-way all-in before dealing out the board. And the prompt players only allow you to get more hands in, increasing your volume. The slow dealers in a timed game cost you in gross terms
|
|
#10
12-28-2006, 07:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time Charge vs. Rake
[ QUOTE ]
At a 10 person table, a $5 per half hour charge will bring the house up to a max of $100 per hour. If you assume 30-35 hands per hour, the max for the rake is $120/140. However, since a number of hands may not hit $40 in the pot, we have to haircut this a bit. Say $100-120. Overall, I 'think' the house does slightly better with the rake. However, if you're a tight player, the rake may cost you less, in the long run, regardless of whether it's slightly favorable to the house or not. [/ QUOTE ] At 10 player $5.00 / hr the house would probably collection closer to 90 per hour, as the table will not always be full at collection time.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
