I think rake by the hour sux

[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.

[PokerEveryDay]

Bottom line, with a pot rake a nit can sit a whole hour and not pay any rake (fold every hand). With a timed rake he will pay $12 for that hour on top of the blinds. His blinds are the only thing that helped generate rake for the pots that he wasn't in.

On the other hand, a player who plays every hand in one hour and never wins a pot (helped generated rake that the winner took down) paid $12 more with a timed rake vs. a raked pot.

You can say the loser who never won a pot is paying rake at a raked pot structure, but comparing apples to apples he loses $12 more with a timed rake vs. a raked pot in my scenario.

Furthermore, you can figure out what you need to win in terms of BB/hour from my original post to break even.

It will cost you $33/hr to play at the table. You need to win 7BB and hour (gross) to break even assuming a couple dollars thrown in for tips. Even 10BB is only $15/hr. This is also assuming not playing from your blinds. If so, that number would be lower for the same hourly rate. Obviously pot size will be a big factor too.

I still believe a timed rake is worse than a pot rake. The casino is doing it because they know this too.

[SellingtheDrama]

A high rake is going to suck, no matter how you structure it.

My normal game is $5/hh (2/5 with 500 buyin). $100/hour means 25 hands to breakeven. There's no doubt in my mind that the players are winning on this, slightly.

And if the argument is that this setup doesn't favor nits, I'm in favor of it. I'd much rather not have them in my game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Overseer55]

[ QUOTE ]
And if the argument is that this setup doesn't favor nits, I'm in favor of it. I'd much rather not have them in my game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I second this!

[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.

[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?

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

True, but the majority of times the good players have the bad players out stacked. Keep in mind I'm talking 1/2NL 300max. I'd say its not uncommon to have 1 or 2 players at the table that are so bad that they'll go bust 9 times out of 10.


[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its actually irrelevant if somebody replaces him or not. I just used the example of noone new sitting down because it makes it more clear. However, if the player is replaced it doesn't change the fact that the money the busted player paid in rake is now not in the stack of another player (even in the busted player's stack).

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I am making the assumption that he would have lost that money. Or atleast that he would lose it often enough to make a difference. I don't think this is a stretch because good NL players in capped buy-in games are much more likely to have a big stack. NL is a brutal game for bad players.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not actually sure how big of an effect it is, I just thought of it the other day and I haven't really heard people talking about this aspect of the rake vs. time debate. I would tend to say that the obvious answer is the right answer; whatever takes the most money off the table is worse for good players (and bad). However, I really don't buy that rake costs bad players more then good players because good players generally play tighter. I do feel that any difference is made up for by the fact that that losers get stacked much more often then good players.

[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.

[the machine]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

id agree with this to an extent.

its close in average money leaving the table but per person it is very different.

for those who say how beatable live games are i agree with them to. but when you run super cold over a 5 hour session with braindead opponents (ie they dont fold ever) and you dont make a hand you still pay rake as opposed to just paying your blinds.

ive always hated time games because im fairly nitty in live games, esp at foxwoods (AC and vegas games are so much tighter) and i can bully the table. but in time games when im running cold im still paying with nothing coming back.

[DeadMoneyWalking]

If that's so, it may be a double edged sword. Timed games may generally play looser than raked ones.