|
|
#21
12-05-2005, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Time vs Rake
With a $4 rake, there only has to be 25 hands/hr for the casion to make as much as they do for $5/half hr. If you figure that not every hand is raked the max, maybe 35 hands are required (though I don't think it is usually that many). So I think the Casino usually takes more money off the table in rake games. Therefore I prefer time.
|
|
#22
12-05-2005, 07:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time vs Rake
[ QUOTE ]
If a bad player is going broke from busting his 100 dollar buyin he shouldn't be at the casino period. I always here this comment about why casinos don't like nl. But have you ever watched roulette, the tilters all go bust with a minutes. Every casino has that game though? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Um, when a roulette player goes bust, the casino rejoyces. They have all their money. When a poker player goes bust, the casino isn't so happy because now some rock has all the money (or worse, the game breaks), and the casino will never get it.
|
|
#23
12-05-2005, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time vs Rake
[ QUOTE ]
If a bad player is going broke from busting his 100 dollar buyin he shouldn't be at the casino period. I always here this comment about why casinos don't like nl. But have you ever watched roulette, the tilters all go bust with a minutes. Every casino has that game though? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] But the casino gets to take all of the roulette player's money. In poker, they only take the rake. If they lose $500 in one hour, they are only making a couple of dollars from the person.
|
|
#24
12-09-2005, 06:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Time vs Rake
[ QUOTE ]
With a $4 rake, there only has to be 25 hands/hr for the casion to make as much as they do for $5/half hr. If you figure that not every hand is raked the max, maybe 35 hands are required (though I don't think it is usually that many). So I think the Casino usually takes more money off the table in rake games. Therefore I prefer time. [/ QUOTE ] Well I think your using extreme examples on both ends (time charge is generally more, rake is generally less) Ill give two examples for 1/2/2 NL: Casino San Pablo.. rake is 3$ every pot no matter what Lucky Chance's.. time charge is 6$ every half hour suppose 30 hands/hr, and you win 10% of hands (keep in mind you have to account for time lost with dealer changes, calling floor man over, using new decks) So 30 hands/hr = you win 3 hands/hr = you pay 9$ in rake 6$ every half an hour = you pay 12$ in rake Now suppose your a tight player like me and only win 2 times every hour. Then you end up paying 6$ in rake.. half the amount youd lose at a time charge casino. Hence I dont play 1/1/2 NL at Lucky Chance's... the charge is too high..
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
