Session Fee vs. Rake

[adamstewart]

I played live at a nearby casino last weekend (something I don't usually do).

The games $2/$5 and $5/$10 games take a RAKE up to a maximum of $5/pot (ridiculous, especially for the $2/$5, I know).

The higher limit games, such as $10/$20 did not collect a "rake" but rather charged a SESSION FEE of "$5 /half hour."


Does this have any subtle implications for one's strategy/play??



Adam

[DMBFan23]

the higher the rake, the less hands you would want to defend/steal with.

[Brom]

Session fee is generally better for loose players and players who win many pots. This is because loose players will obviously win more than their fair share of pots simply by being in more often. If they were paying rake it would probably end up costing them more, depending on the how high the rake is and the rate of the session fee.

It is generally said that tight players should play in the rake games because they presumably play less hands per hour and win a higher percentage of the pots they enter. Conversely they could conceivable play for a full half hour without winning or even entering a pot and still end up paying a session fee. Looser players will have ended up stealing the tighties' blinds enough in that time period to cover their own session fees.

Tight players pay the loose players' session fees and loose players pay the most in rake games.

[Dave D]

Isn't this the standard rake/session fee at foxwoods? It's been a few months, but that's what I remember it being. Not totally rediculous I don't think.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this the standard rake/session fee at foxwoods? It's been a few months, but that's what I remember it being. Not totally rediculous I don't think.

[/ QUOTE ]


By "totally ridiculous", I meant that they are taking 1 BB/hand in rake most of the time. For a player trying to earn 1 BB/hr, this is can severely impact one's winrate, if not negate it.


Adam

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Session fee is generally better for loose players and players who win many pots. This is because loose players will obviously win more than their fair share of pots simply by being in more often. If they were paying rake it would probably end up costing them more, depending on the how high the rake is and the rate of the session fee.

It is generally said that tight players should play in the rake games because they presumably play less hands per hour and win a higher percentage of the pots they enter. Conversely they could conceivable play for a full half hour without winning or even entering a pot and still end up paying a session fee. Looser players will have ended up stealing the tighties' blinds enough in that time period to cover their own session fees.

Tight players pay the loose players' session fees and loose players pay the most in rake games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice answer, thank you.


I was thinking about this before I posted... does the "Session Fee" structure induce action then?

Also, in a "session fee" game, would it be advisable to loosen up a bit? (Increasing attempts to steal the blinds would be a given, but other than that, should one loosen up starting hand requirements, etc?)


Adam