I think rake by the hour sux

[PokerEveryDay]

[ 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.

[Greeksquared]

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.