Re: Rake Question
 

Let me get this clear, is this $1 per hand regardless of whether you call or not, or only if you call before the flop?

It makes a huge difference. In the first case, it would be terrible. In the second case, it might not be all that bad.

-J

Re: Rake Question
 

This is absolutely awful.

Re: Rake Question
 

You pay a dollar before you call, so if there are ten players you all pay a dollar and then all the hole cards are delt, you need to pay a dollar to be in the game.

Is there any level where this could be profitable?

How is this different to paying 5% rake, if all the pots are above $200.

What am I missing, obviously short handed would be a disaster, but playing 10 handed if every pot was greater than $200 you would be better paying $1 per hand than 5% rake????? (provided there was no cap on rake)

Aust Casinos are a rip off, no real competition

Dink

Re: Rake Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

How is this different to paying 5% rake, if all the pots are above $200.


[/ QUOTE ]

IF all the pots were above $200 it would be better than paying 5% rake.

But I can tell you that on the Internet, it's a pretty good game if the average pot size is as much as six big bets - that'd be only $60 in your case. Live games run a tad looser but there is still no way the average pot in a typical 5/10 game is even $100 let alone $200. That means you are paying more than twice the worst rake you'd face anywhere else.

Re: Rake Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, this statement seems theoretically flawed: "I can't see how it could be profitable to overcome a $1/hand charge in a limit game, no matter how fishy the game."

Suppose you get invited to a game where billionaire fish are playing $1000/2000 limit hold 'em extremely poorly for a time charge of $1 per hand. Bankroll/variance issues aside, that would be a +EV game, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess one could also calculate in the shock factor of having others at the table see monkies flying out of my butt, but I assumed that the reader realized that my comment above referred to real world situations--which would include common, real world betting limits.

Re: Rake Question
 

You are certainly getting ripped off compared to American standards, the fact that you pay time in AUD makes no difference, because Im sure the wagers are in AUD too.
That being said, while the price is high, it is not as bad compared to European casinos. If I remember correctly the Aviation Club in France charged what amounted to about $17(US)for a time charge. And Rolf Slotsboom always used to talk about the high charges in his games in Europe.

So while it is high, the games can be beat, I would assume at 5-10 and up a very good player could beat the rake

Re: Rake Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
$1 per hand is way too high proportion-wise for 5/10. if you're playing 1000/2000 then $1 per hand is pretty insignificant.
correct me if i'm wrong, or if i missed your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you caught my point and reiterated it. Chesspain made a sweeping generality: "I can't see how it could be profitable to overcome a $1/hand charge in a limit game, no matter how fishy the game." And I'm pointing out that it's not the absolute size of the rake that matters, but the proportional rake.

Perhaps it really is unbeatable at $5/10, no matter how fishy. So I'm probably in "violent agreement" with everyone here including chesspain.

Re: Rake Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess one could also calculate in the shock factor of having others at the table see monkies flying out of my butt, but I assumed that the reader realized that my comment above referred to real world situations--which would include common, real world betting limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect the rake structure described would be very beatable in a reasonably fishy $40/80 game (US or AU, take your pick). As far as I know (but not first hand), $40/80 games take place in the real world and sometimes include big donors, so this scenario doesn't seem outlandish to me. The $30/60 limit game the Bike shows on its video stream looks pretty fishy, so it might be beatable at this rake.

The fact that I used an extreme illustration to make a point -- that the relative rake is what's beatable or unbeatable, not the absolute rake -- in no way implies that $1000/2000 is the smallest beatable game under this rake.

You made a generality so broad as to be wrong: "I can't see how it could be profitable to overcome a $1/hand charge in a limit game." There exist limit games high enough that such a rake could be overcome. In fairness maybe you had in mind that we were only talking about $5/10 games (so "a limit game" means as opposed to $5-10 blinds NL) but that wasn't at all clear from your OP.