rake vs time charge

[Chris Daddy Cool]

You're playing 3/6 limit hold'em

would you rather have a 3 dollar time charge on the button or a 4 dollar rake?

oh btw, every single pot is raked at 4 bucks regardless of how much is in the pot as long as there's a flop. so the only time there won't be a rake is if theres no flop, i.e. chop.

[partygirluk]

You have left out one very valuable piece of information. Do you see what it is?

<font color="white"> How many handed the game is. </font>

[Chris Daddy Cool]

full ring 9 to ten handed.

[partygirluk]

Some initial thoughts:

As this is live 3/6, the number of hands that are taken down preflop is very low, 0 for simplicity.

10 handed, button charge, total rake per 10 hands is $30, of which your share is $3.

10 handed, rake, total rake per hand is $40, of which your share will be $4 on average, but as you are a much tighter player than average Chris, then it will deviate closer to $3. Probably $3.2 or so. But, some pots will be taken down preflop, so the difference is neglible.

As the table gets more short handed, the button charge becomes less attractive.

So inital analysis suggests that the two methods are comparable for a TA player.

But, when there is a button charge, the pot is larger, and thus the 3/6 LP calling station becomes less wrong, which is bad for you. Effectively, the button charge lowes the antes, which gives you a bigger edge.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
So inital analysis suggests that the two methods are comparable for a TA player.

But, when there is a button charge, the pot is larger, and thus the 3/6 LP calling station becomes less wrong, which is bad for you. Effectively, the button charge lowes the antes, which gives you a bigger edge.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that they are comparable in the sense that you will pay about the same amount to the house. You cite one consideration which makes the rake slightly better (it punishes the playing tendencies of the loosies), but there is also a consideration that makes the rake worse: since there is more total money being taken by the house, your opponents are going to go broke faster. It's true that you probably pay about $3/hr either way, but your opponents collectively pay an extra $10/hr with the rake, which means that the house is taking money that could be going to you. Having the bad players' money sucked down a hole at a faster rate is bad for the game and bad for you.

[CodeNameSoySauce]

It seems that from the few responses here that generally most of you agree that a tight player will pay the same amount in the long run to the house, correct? I know someone who has adamantly stated that you DEFINITELY save money by the house raking 4 instead of taking 3 off the button. On this statement alone, I was wondering if any of you agree with it or disagree with it.

[partygirluk]

Disagree.