Rake vs. Time Charge in 10-20 game

[Mikey]

Ok here is the scenario. 10-20 Hold'em.

$5 a half hour for time

or would prefer

$4 a rake from each pot.

$1 for $20 pot
$2 for $40 pot
$3 for $60 pot
$4 for $80+pot.

I need to know approx how many hands are dealt in one hour in a brick and Mortar cardroom.

What is more advantageous for the tight player?

What is more advantageous for the right player?

Will twice the money come off the table now in rake?


A friend of mine who is an authority of rake vs. time already gave me his point of view but I want to know from you what your thoughts are.

Thanks in advance.

[LetsRock]

I've read somewhere (many years ago - probably in a How to Stud book) that Time is a better deal than rake. That being said, I prefer the feel of rake.

There's just something wrong with paying the house when you're not in a pot. What could be worse than getting cold carded and still having to shell out for the house. If I'm dragging a pot, I don't mind that they're taking a bit of my "profit".

I think the standard hands/hour live is between 30 and 40. Let's say you average $3 rake per hand. That's a total of $90-$120 hour the house is collecting. $10/hour is $100 per hour in time (10 players). So the house take is about the same each way, but the winners are paying the house, not everyone.

If you're winning about 10% of the hands, then it's about even, but if you're winning fewer, you're probably saving a bit in a rake method. And if you happen to drag a severely monster pot, the rake is even less (% wise) since it caps at $4. You have to win a lot of raked pots to be paying more than your share.

I think the rake benefits tight players and time benfits loose players - that's why I really never understood the "How To" book saying the time is better and to play tight.

I could be confused, but this is how my few remaining brain cells has it figured.

[Warik]

Just do the math. Let's say you're winrate is 1BB/hr and you're going to play for 100 hours.

100 hours x 2 half hours = 200 half hours x $5 per half hour = $1,000 in time charge.

If you win 1BB/hr that's $20 x 100 hr = $2,000 winnings.

So for a time charge, you're giving up 50% of your profits.

In order to have the charge of a capped $4 rake equal or exceed the $1,000 time charge, you'd need to win 250 $80 pots ($20,000) and somehow lose enough of it back to have a net profit of only $2,000.

A pot rake is far superior. (unless my math is wrong)

[Ulysses]

Search for posts by Rick Nebiolo here or on RGP. He has written extensively on this.

[Ulysses]

A friend of mine who is an authority of rake vs. time

An authority?

[daryn]

am i oversimplifying this? why don't we just look at the amount the house takes off the table? 10 handed game, paying $10/hour, the house makes $100/hour. how much does the house make per hour in a raked game? i'd say about 20 hands are dealt in an hour of b&m play, so even if the house raked the max $4/hand, that's only $80/hour. seems like the house makes less in this particular raked game as opposed to this particular time game.

[goodguy_1]

Search under "SpeedRacer" on RGP.Both he and Rick dig deep into this topic regularly ie Los Angeles ring games.

GoogleGroup Search:SpeedRacer's posts on rake+time (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=SpeedRacer+rake+time+group%3Arec.gam bling.poker&btnG=Google+Search&meta=group%3Drec.ga mbling.poker)

[Anadrol 50]

20 hands per hour....

That's funny.

[Mikey]

Here is the thing though. Lets take it in total.

You have 10 guys sitting around the table.

How many hands are dealt in 1 hour?

How much money comes off the table in that 1 hour in rake?

Paying time you know that $100 will come off the table.

Now lets say you shrink it down to 8 guys.

The rake is far superior than the time charge for the CASINO but absolutely terrible for the players. Because more hands will be dealt on average and even more money will come off the table as opposed to a $5 collection fee.

I personally would rather pay a time charge of $5 a half hour, even though I don't play that many hands than watch the casino rake in $4 every freaking hand. I'd rather keep the money on the table than in the drop box.

Also I heard mention of Rick Nebiolo <-- i'm not sure if I spelt that correctly posting extensively on this subject. I was wondering whether you or anyone could direct me to his posts about this because I was not able to find any. Something is wrong with my searching tool on 2+2.

Thanks in advance.

[Mikey]

20 hands in an hour??? I think it well over that.

[JTG51]

A pretty good rule of thumb is that the house takes about $100/Hr on raked games also. That makes sense since most tables average 30-35 hands per hour and about $3 in rake per hand.

Everyone pays the same amount in a time game but the loose players pay most of the rake, so a tight player probably saves money in the rake (edited) game Mikey described.

[Mike Gallo]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=cardroom&Number=507540&For um=cardroom&Words=rake&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searc hpage=4&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=507540&Search=t rue#Post507540