$5 time rake at 2/5 NL = better or worse?

[Whitewash]

I was playing 2/5 NL at the Borgata this week and realized they charge a time rake (did not expect a time rake at a lower stakes game), which is $5 every half hour.

Do you think this is better or worse than a normal 10%, max $4 rake? Table is 9-10 handed, I assume 25-30 hands per hour. Stacks in these games generally seem to be in the $400-1000 range.

[NickMPK]

Probably not much difference, but it depends on how tight you play I guess.

[mikech]

just do the math.

time: 10-handed game, $5/half = $100 dropped each hour.

rake: $4/hand, 25-30 hands/hr = $100-$120 raked each hour.

[steamboatin]

It depends entirely upon your style. If you like to splash around and see lots of flops, time drop is better. If you are Tag, raked pots are cheaper because all it costs to wait for AA is the blinds.

[Fishhead24]

[ QUOTE ]
It depends entirely upon your style. If you like to splash around and see lots of flops, time drop is better. If you are Tag, raked pots are cheaper because all it costs to wait for AA is the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nuff said

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
just do the math.

time: 10-handed game, $5/half = $100 dropped each hour.

rake: $4/hand, 25-30 hands/hr = $100-$120 raked each hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This math is good but it doesn't allow for which method saves you the most money. If you are LAG and get involved in lots of pots, some obviously small, you are contributing much more to the rake than a rock.

If you are a rock time drop costs you $5 per dealer down plus your blinds to sit and wait for AA but in a raked pot all you pay is your blinds.

[NickMPK]

Also, note that if the game is frequently played short-handed, the time collection is clearly the better method. This is especially true with 7-8 players, since casinos often reduce the rake with less than 7 players.

[Packard]

Time rake is fine at 2/5 NL

Time rake sucks at 1/2 NL

[Fishhead24]

[ QUOTE ]
Time rake is fine at 2/5 NL

Time rake sucks at 1/2 NL

[/ QUOTE ]

This sums it up.