Time vs Rake

[octop]

I played 2/5 nl at the Borgata the last 2 days and it was the first time I had ever payed time (5 dollar per half hour)
I play pretty tight and was just wondering what people think is better (why charge time at 2/5 but rake 1/2 - Im sure they have it figured out)

The closest casino to me charges $5/half at 1-2NL, so I think time is better for you. Generally I like time better because it encourages me to play better and stop worrying about the rake.

[soh538]

Rake is better, becasue you are not going to win every pot, so why pay it. Time is better at higher limits, because there tend to be so many rocks, how else will the casino get their money.

[Jeffage]

Time is charged at higher limits usually because one dollar chips aren't in play and it's a pain in the ass for a dealer to make change every hand. Also, to me, time is better than rake because the games I play typically have time pots and I virtually never pay them.

Jeff

[ QUOTE ]
to me, time is better than rake because the games I play typically have time pots and I virtually never pay them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I hate time pots, they kill action.

[Jeffage]

If they kill action, I agree, I don't like them. But at 40-80 and higher, this is rarely the case (I think below 40-80, time pots DO hurt the action to much). The 80-160 is one time pot, winner pays the $100 drop. The pot has to be $800 or more. That's typically the first hand. No worries in terms of action. If it affects the action, I start paying my own time and lots of people follow suit.

At the 75-150 stud, the $10 time charge is taken from the antes on hand one so the winner pays. This is my favorite bc it tightens the action for like one hand. And, oh yea, it doesn't even tighten it for that.

Jeff

[KenProspero]

My thoughts -- all other things being equal. Rakes should be better for tight players and time charges for looser players.

In general, with a max rake of $4/hand, and 30 ish hands being played an hour, the house can take 90-110 an hour from the table. With a time charge game of $5/half an hour, they make the same $100 an hour with a full table. The difference is that those who win more hands pay a disproportionate share of the rake.

However, all things are never equal. Even though I'm a relatively tight player, I prefer the rake. For example, in a $1/2 NL timed game, I find myself getting annoyed at the Jackash who delays and fumbles as if he's at the final table of WSOP (and let's face it, he's really fooling nobody). We're playing fewer hands for our drop. Yeah, I should be as upset when he's farking around in a raked game, since I'm expecting my profit to be based on the number of hands I play. Also the more hands I play, the lower variance I will have. But it seems to irk more in a time-charge game.

[lonn19]

I am unfamiliar with a time charge. Instead of a rake you have to pay $5 for every half hour you are at the table?

What is a time pot? Is this just a reference to the absence of a rake, and a time charge instead?

[Hotrod0823]

My question then is this:

If you are playing 30 hands per hour, how many hands do you win? Is it 10%? 3 Hands per hour.

If all are max raked you are paying 12 bucks an hour to play aren't you?

Just a thought

[octop]

I think it does hurt the tight player a little
I also like t leave on my big blind and sometimes the button would just pass me and then time was being collected so I just payed my blinds for nothing

[Jeffage]

When games are time charged, players pay a charge on the dealer change instead of having every pot raked (this typically is collected on the half hour). The charge depends on the stakes: in AC, it's 5 for 10-20, 6 for 15-30, 7 for 20-40, 8 for 40-80, 10 for 80-160.

Jeff

[Jeffage]

A time pot is sometimes used in games that have a time charge rather than a rake. One player puts up the time for the entire table (say, $80 in a 40-80 game). Then, the winners of the first two pots of at least $400 pay half the total time each. So, first winner pays 40, second pays 40, back to the person who put it up. In bigger games, it is usually paid in one pot. Those who don't want to participate or are away from the table pay separately.

Jeff

[VBCurtis]

[ QUOTE ]
My question then is this:

If you are playing 30 hands per hour, how many hands do you win? Is it 10%? 3 Hands per hour.

If all are max raked you are paying 12 bucks an hour to play aren't you?

Just a thought

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're at a full table, an average player would expect to win 10% of his hands; obviously, a tighter player less than 10% and looser more than 10%. That's the reasoning for tight players liking rake more-- if you win 7% of pots, you're paying more like $8.50/hr, while a LAG might pay more like $20/hr, and really hope for a time charge.

Your reasoning applies to an average-looseness player, which is why the casino doesn't really care which happens.
-Curtis

[lefty rosen]

I hate time charges on small games such as 1/2 NL. It really squeezes a rockish player who gets a bad beat or two. If your ace king or ace queen doesnt hit the board and you put some cash in the pot. Your almost forced to play 10/10 or 9/9 like a hero the next time you are dealt it. As you lose ten percent per hour which is total garbage......

[rchandra]

time wins by a large margin (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=time&word2=rake)

[poker327]

I don't blame a casino for charing time for 1/2 NL. Not as many hands are played, thus the rake collection will be smaller. Plus, NL games make the bad players broke faster, so the casino won't get their business in the future

[Gandor]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate time charges on small games such as 1/2 NL. ... As you lose ten percent per hour which is total garbage......

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a couple easy solutions, don't play short, or don't pay time out of your stack.

[lefty rosen]

If a bad player is going broke from busting his 100 dollar buyin he shouldn't be at the casino period. I always here this comment about why casinos don't like nl. But have you ever watched roulette, the tilters all go bust with a minutes. Every casino has that game though? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[KenProspero]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing 30 hands per hour, how many hands do you win? Is it 10%? 3 Hands per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably win 7% of the hands I play -- maybe a bit less.

[jstnrgrs]

With a $4 rake, there only has to be 25 hands/hr for the casion to make as much as they do for $5/half hr. If you figure that not every hand is raked the max, maybe 35 hands are required (though I don't think it is usually that many). So I think the Casino usually takes more money off the table in rake games. Therefore I prefer time.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
If a bad player is going broke from busting his 100 dollar buyin he shouldn't be at the casino period. I always here this comment about why casinos don't like nl. But have you ever watched roulette, the tilters all go bust with a minutes. Every casino has that game though? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, when a roulette player goes bust, the casino rejoyces. They have all their money.

When a poker player goes bust, the casino isn't so happy because now some rock has all the money (or worse, the game breaks), and the casino will never get it.

[poker327]

[ QUOTE ]
If a bad player is going broke from busting his 100 dollar buyin he shouldn't be at the casino period. I always here this comment about why casinos don't like nl. But have you ever watched roulette, the tilters all go bust with a minutes. Every casino has that game though? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

But the casino gets to take all of the roulette player's money. In poker, they only take the rake. If they lose $500 in one hour, they are only making a couple of dollars from the person.

[spino1i]

[ QUOTE ]
With a $4 rake, there only has to be 25 hands/hr for the casion to make as much as they do for $5/half hr. If you figure that not every hand is raked the max, maybe 35 hands are required (though I don't think it is usually that many). So I think the Casino usually takes more money off the table in rake games. Therefore I prefer time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think your using extreme examples on both ends (time charge is generally more, rake is generally less)

Ill give two examples for 1/2/2 NL:

Casino San Pablo.. rake is 3$ every pot no matter what
Lucky Chance's.. time charge is 6$ every half hour
suppose 30 hands/hr, and you win 10% of hands (keep in mind you have to account for time lost with dealer changes, calling floor man over, using new decks)

So 30 hands/hr = you win 3 hands/hr = you pay 9$ in rake
6$ every half an hour = you pay 12$ in rake

Now suppose your a tight player like me and only win 2 times every hour. Then you end up paying 6$ in rake.. half the amount youd lose at a time charge casino.

Hence I dont play 1/1/2 NL at Lucky Chance's... the charge is too high..