A rake variant, would you play in this game?

Girchuck · #1 04-22-2005, 03:15 PM

Suppose, instead of the rake, the house has a player that has only 1 dollar on the table and always goes all-in. If he wins all-in, house keeps the money, if he loses, he gets a dollar back.

Would you play in this game?

threeonefour · #2 04-22-2005, 04:04 PM

no, the house will end up winning about 12-15%(probably more) of the time at a ten handed table and it would slow the game down a ton since you would have to deal a flop turn and river even if the blinds were just stolen. Also the winner would always have to show his hand if he didn't want it raked.

fnord_too · #3 04-22-2005, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose, instead of the rake, the house has a player that has only 1 dollar on the table and always goes all-in. If he wins all-in, house keeps the money, if he loses, he gets a dollar back.

Would you play in this game?

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, the house would keep $1 time the number of other players?

If that is the case, the rake would be on average $n/n+1 (where n is the number of non house players) per hand. So, for 9 handed game that is $0.90 per hand? I think that low of a rake is pretty awesome. If you adjust that up so that the house actually makes a reasonable ammount, then I think the other posters point about always having to show down your hand is pretty big, though it is mitigated by the fact that your opponents always have to show their hands, too. I think if you are better than your opponents, this would probably actually improve your expectation in the short run, and only hurt you in the long run if your opponents actively learned from your play.

So would I play? I'd at least give it a try.

Girchuck · #4 04-22-2005, 04:17 PM

What if the house player didn't get back the whole dollar if he lost? What would be the fair amount for the house player to get back to compensate for slowing of the game and mandatory hand showing?

Girchuck · #5 04-22-2005, 04:33 PM

I didn't envision a 1 dollar ante, so if the house happens to win, it only wins the money of the players in the hand and not the ones that folded preflop (except, the blinds would be considered in the hand all the time)
Would you make any adjustments to your bluffing strategy in such a game? Would you play tighter than normal?

threeonefour · #6 04-22-2005, 11:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What if the house player didn't get back the whole dollar if he lost? What would be the fair amount for the house player to get back to compensate for slowing of the game and mandatory hand showing?

[/ QUOTE ]

um... that might be enough for me to play but its close. ultimately its a nonsensical rake structure... its bad for the house, its bad for the player. so i think i might just say no on principle.