I think rake by the hour sux

[PokerEveryDay]

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?

[punkass]

that's a lot of conditions to your example. I don't know if any of that is close to being right...

You assume 30 hands an hour. So in timed rake, you pay $10 an hour, no matter what. 10 players, $100 in rake for the hour.

If pot raked, it's $120, if $4 raked per hand. But obviously for 1/2, not every hand gets raked max. If it averages $3 a hand, it's $90.

I think it's close that it's not something to worry about. Obviously the more hands you play, the more timed is better. So if you feel like with a timed raked, you want "more bang for your rake dollar", open up your starting hand range.

[Howard Beale]

I read an article some time back by some writer in CardPlayer arguing that time charges, rather than rake per pot, in the higher limits were better for the health of the game because the loose players were paying a disproportionate share of the rake (they play more pots and therefore pay more when the game is raked). So, meh, there is that for what it's worth.

[PokerEveryDay]

punkass, I agree with you at the end of your reply. I'm talking about me or any one player what it costs, not what the casino makes per hour. In the 2/5 game the casino is making $120/hr. not $100 with a timed rake. With a $4 max rake per pot, only the winner pays rake while the others helped generate it. So if all 30 hands/pots per hour generated the max $4 rake, then the house would also make $120/hr (not likely). This of course is better for the house, which usually means it's worse for the players. I was just giving an example of what could happen.

Whatever time you spend thinking on a hand isn't costing you vs. a timed rake. If your running into a cold deck, your losing less money in rake. Only when your on a rush will it be an advantage to have a timed rake.

[jjshabado]

I don't really follow the OP. I kind of stopped caring when he started talking about the blinds.

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.

Obviously this isn't as applicable in limit since bad players bust much less often. They often leave with some portion of their stack.

In an extreme case where only people that have busted can leave the table and no new blood sits down the winning player paid all of the rake. In which case the player prefers whatever kept the most money on the table (rake vs. time, depending on number of players, number of hands dealt, and so on).

Obviously there are tons of complications but my gut feeling is that time isn't that much worse then rake at low limit NL for good players.

[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.

[n.s.]

[ 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.

[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 ]
[ 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.

[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.