Rake Question
 

My Local Casino has just started holdem,

it is a 5/10 game
They don't rake the Pot, every player has tp pay $1 to play each hand and the casino keeps this.

my question is...

Is this a fair rake deal?

should I not worry about playing b&m and stick with internet poker.I usually play 1/2 online.

Last Night I played and the game were very fishy. every single hand went to a showdown. I don't remember anyonw folding on the river.

My thinking is that if the pot gets to $200 then 5% of the pot is equal to the money than 10 players pay to be in a pot. Anything over $200 is a bonus and anything under $200 is a rip off.

thoughts?

Dink...

Re: Rake Question
 

I've always heard that casinos take approx. $100/hr in rake per table--which would mean that everyone is contributing approx. $10/hr, although tight players may contribute a bit less. However, at your casino, assuming that the dealers are not on Thorazine, everyone is probably paying no less than $20/hr.

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.

Re: Rake Question
 

That's awful! Essentially you are paying $30-$40 every hour as a time charge. Sounds like a pretty good way to go broke.

Re: Rake Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's awful! Essentially you are paying $30-$40 every hour as a time charge. Sounds like a pretty good way to go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree that the per hand charge is exorbitant, I really doubt that these players are seeing anywhere near 30-40 hands per hour.

Re: Rake Question
 

Presumably it's AUD 1.00, not USD 1.00. The AUD is apparently around 73 cents US (I overcame my laziness to check) so it's not 2x the rake you posit in US currency, only 1.5 times.

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?

Now, I don't know how AUD 5/10 plays versus say Foxwoods' USD 4/8 or 2/4 or whatever. Probably not fishy enough to make USD 0.73 per hand worth it. But in theory, the problem is the time charge relative to the stakes of the game -- not the time charge in absolute terms.

Re: Rake Question
 

That rake makes poker nearly as bad as the table games. Even if it was Pacific poker bad the game would be nearly unbeatable........

Re: Rake Question
 

It was bad,

I saw maybe two solid players,

one guy walked away with over $1000

one guys was playing every 5th hand blind (not looking at his hole cards) and capping every street.

one asian guy call people down with 7 10 off and no 7 or ten on the board.

In 30 odd hands I had two playable hands, I won with QJ off in the small blind when I picked up a full house and Mr Blind player was capping all the way. my other hand was Q10 suited in late position. I was just wishing for hands to play.

I saw two guys lose $500 and many players would come in for $100 and be gone five hands later.

I was thinking with play like this, I could make some money from this game even paying $15 an hour in rake.

Dink

Re: Rake Question
 

i don't think i understand this structure. before every hand do they take a dollar from every player? what if you don't play the hand? what constitutes "playing a hand"?
i also assume you mean 5/10 limit. maybe if it was 5/10 NL it might be worth it.
i think 20-25 hands in hour would be the highest you can see in that period of time, so $25 an hour? seems really high.
why don't they just do a time charge instead?

Re: Rake Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

We're talking about a $5/$10 game here. You'd need a sustainable winrate of 10bb/100 to break even. That's not possible. Playing $1000/2000 you'd only need to win .05bb/100. That's a big difference.

Re: Rake Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ]
this doesn't make sense to me. $1 per hand at that structure is excellent, seemingly. $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.

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.