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.