I think rake by the hour sux

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it applies to bad players stacking each other. But realistically, good players stack bad players more often and if player A stacks player B and then gets stacked by player C then player C assumes the rake paid by A and B.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that bad players are in more pots and thus paying more rake, but I don't think the argument is that easy to make. Its especially naive to assume that good players are only paying the rake on the hands they win, which seems to be a common sentiment I hear from people.



[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and I think in the NL case this an approximate model of what happens on a semi-regular basis. A bad player has a small bankroll for the day and leaves when he goes broke. Obviously there are bad players that leave with money, but whenever someone gets stacked by a player with significantly more money then them, the losing player basically played rake free since they bought in.

[n.s.]

[ QUOTE ]

Sure it applies to bad players stacking each other. But realistically, good players stack bad players more often and if player A stacks player B and then gets stacked by player C then player C assumes the rake paid by A and B.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that bad players are in more pots and thus paying more rake, but I don't think the argument is that easy to make. Its especially naive to assume that good players are only paying the rake on the hands they win, which seems to be a common sentiment I hear from people.


[/ QUOTE ]
This all assumes that the good player has the bad player covered, which often won't be true in a capped buy-in game (especially if the bad player just stacked another bad player).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and I think in the NL case this an approximate model of what happens on a semi-regular basis. A bad player has a small bankroll for the day and leaves when he goes broke. Obviously there are bad players that leave with money, but whenever someone gets stacked by a player with significantly more money then them, the losing player basically played rake free since they bought in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the model breaks down because when a player busts, generally there is someone else who will come in to take his seat. In this sense, in a reasonably busy cardroom, there's effectively an infinite amount of money flowing to the table.

If you say that a losing player played "rake free" when he gets busted, then you are assuming that he definitely would have lost whatever extra money that he made - it's kind of like saying that the pots he won might as well be nullified, since he busted out in the end. Maybe without the rake, the bad player would have had enough money in his stack that he wouldn't have called the all-in - there's no way to be sure.

I actually still agree with your basic point - that winning players earn is affected by rake/time that bad players pay - but I think it's not as extreme of an effect as you think it is.

[r0eKY]

the rake at my local casino (caesars IN) for 1/2 300max nl is $6 per half hour. you add that with tips + travel expenses (30min drive + gas + table wait)= unbeatable game which other wise would be a gold mine. sux the casino owner/crooks are the only one's making any money.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
the rake at my local casino (caesars IN) for 1/2 300max nl is $6 per half hour. you add that with tips + travel expenses (30min drive + gas + table wait)= unbeatable game which other wise would be a gold mine. sux the casino owner/crooks are the only one's making any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very sure this is beatable. Although, I guess it depends on what your time is worth since you factored in driving time and waiting for a table.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the rake at my local casino (caesars IN) for 1/2 300max nl is $6 per half hour. you add that with tips + travel expenses (30min drive + gas + table wait)= unbeatable game which other wise would be a gold mine. sux the casino owner/crooks are the only one's making any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very sure this is beatable. Although, I guess it depends on what your time is worth since you factored in driving time and waiting for a table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure it is beatable also. My sample size is tiny and I am not a NL player but sometimes I am convinced the entire table rode to the casino together on the short bus.

[redfisher]

I agree with this. A $6/down charge is equal to 24 hands/hour full rake at the $5/hand typical around here. Even at $4/hand is only 30 full rake hands.

1/2 NL generates a lot of less than fully raked hands, so the time charge is tough. At 2/5 I think it's a wash. At 5/10 or above, I think the table benefits.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning an average of 3 pots out of 30 in an hour of play ten-handed = crushing the game?

On average, how many pots out of 30 per hour should the average player win?

[PokerEveryDay]

[ QUOTE ]
Winning an average of 3 pots out of 30 in an hour of play ten-handed = crushing the game?

On average, how many pots out of 30 per hour should the average player win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning 3 pots out of seeing 10 flops is crushing the game. I think winning 2 pots per hour is good. This is an average over many sessions.

[Rick Nebiolo]

If you want to read enough about rake or drop v time to make your eyes bleed you can read this list of links to old rec.gambling.poker newsgroup posts I wrote on the subject, many of which were in discussions with the infamous Speed Racer.

[shipitkthx]

I play at both Fallsview (canadian side) and Seneca Niagara (american side). Fallsview is timed rake and Seneca is a normal drop. From what i've seen I am pretty sure that the timed rake does cost me a little bit more. However I have also noticed that the timed rake loosens up the games. In games with a drop some of the smarter regulars, who are still very bad but aren't exactly whales, play a lot tighter to avoid paying as much rake. I'm not really sure if this is something that can be calculated or proven but my personal belief is that while timed rake may be slightly more expensive, it actually increases the winrate of a player like myself by encouraging more mediocre players to freely play a lot more pots. Just my $0.02.