yo, Mason

I just read Poker Essays III. One essay I would like to hear more about is Comparing the Rake on page 100. It sounds to me like you are saying that the reason the rake isn't too high in California is because if you lived there you would be working as a prop. Did I get this right? What about those of us who aren't props (or hosts, which is better yet)? Are we suckers for paying the high collections?


Just wondering.

Many years ago when the Bike first opened I worked as a silent prop on the weekends for about three months. For those who don't know a silent prop is someone who acts like a regular customer but he has an agreement with the cardroom to play a certain number of hours in a certain game. It can be a pretty sweet deal.


My point was that I, being famous in the world of poker, would probably have some sort of deal like that in LA if I still lived there and wanted to play a lot of poker.


As for you, I doubt if you're a sucker since I assume that you win. But you are certainly paying more than your fair share of rake. Furthermore, if the rake was distributed more equitably, my bet is that it would be very good for the long term growth of poker. But in the short run it could cause a shortage of games.


By the way, in the future, posts like this should go on our new "News, Views, & Gossip" forum.


Best wishes,

Mason

why not on books/software..???question about vol iii...or other topics???

I don't think a question about rakes is gossip. Maybe you misunderstood my intention, but I seriously wanted a clarification of your opinion on the rakes in CA. Do you think they are too high because of the props, or are they just what the market will bear?

I think the answer is yes, but I look at it a little differently. The rake per table is about the same whether there would be props or not. But because there are props, it is not distributed fairly. So someone like you pays more than his fair share, while someone like myself, assuming I was to move to LA, would pay less than his fair share.

poor memory, but seems I recently read a report by noted female player (I'm relly bad on names, but something like Wendeen ??) anyway, report was that california clubs may take collection from pot rather than from players...don't know how that would be different from a rake???


BUT MY POINT IS that props pay higher % of rake due to their win of higher % of pots....would that not be correct? if the money which goes to the club comes out of the pot, then the losers get free ride---looks fair to me!

Wouldn't it make better business sense for the house to have this arrangement with the liveones?

Except that the props are being paid to sit at the table, and their pay is usually a little more than what the rake would be.

Absolutely. In fact, a few poker room managers are aware that they should try to hire live ones as props. On the other hand I have watched rooms destroy their games by hiring all the best players. I believe that this was one of the contributors to the decline at The Bike a few years back.

I can't imagine a live one would stay live too long as a prop; he'd pick up his game if he had any kind of brain.


That's a pretty cheap 2c worth.


G