Time vs Rake

[octop]

I played 2/5 nl at the Borgata the last 2 days and it was the first time I had ever payed time (5 dollar per half hour)
I play pretty tight and was just wondering what people think is better (why charge time at 2/5 but rake 1/2 - Im sure they have it figured out)

The closest casino to me charges $5/half at 1-2NL, so I think time is better for you. Generally I like time better because it encourages me to play better and stop worrying about the rake.

[soh538]

Rake is better, becasue you are not going to win every pot, so why pay it. Time is better at higher limits, because there tend to be so many rocks, how else will the casino get their money.

[Jeffage]

Time is charged at higher limits usually because one dollar chips aren't in play and it's a pain in the ass for a dealer to make change every hand. Also, to me, time is better than rake because the games I play typically have time pots and I virtually never pay them.

Jeff

[ QUOTE ]
to me, time is better than rake because the games I play typically have time pots and I virtually never pay them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I hate time pots, they kill action.

[Jeffage]

If they kill action, I agree, I don't like them. But at 40-80 and higher, this is rarely the case (I think below 40-80, time pots DO hurt the action to much). The 80-160 is one time pot, winner pays the $100 drop. The pot has to be $800 or more. That's typically the first hand. No worries in terms of action. If it affects the action, I start paying my own time and lots of people follow suit.

At the 75-150 stud, the $10 time charge is taken from the antes on hand one so the winner pays. This is my favorite bc it tightens the action for like one hand. And, oh yea, it doesn't even tighten it for that.

Jeff

[KenProspero]

My thoughts -- all other things being equal. Rakes should be better for tight players and time charges for looser players.

In general, with a max rake of $4/hand, and 30 ish hands being played an hour, the house can take 90-110 an hour from the table. With a time charge game of $5/half an hour, they make the same $100 an hour with a full table. The difference is that those who win more hands pay a disproportionate share of the rake.

However, all things are never equal. Even though I'm a relatively tight player, I prefer the rake. For example, in a $1/2 NL timed game, I find myself getting annoyed at the Jackash who delays and fumbles as if he's at the final table of WSOP (and let's face it, he's really fooling nobody). We're playing fewer hands for our drop. Yeah, I should be as upset when he's farking around in a raked game, since I'm expecting my profit to be based on the number of hands I play. Also the more hands I play, the lower variance I will have. But it seems to irk more in a time-charge game.

[lonn19]

I am unfamiliar with a time charge. Instead of a rake you have to pay $5 for every half hour you are at the table?

What is a time pot? Is this just a reference to the absence of a rake, and a time charge instead?

[Hotrod0823]

My question then is this:

If you are playing 30 hands per hour, how many hands do you win? Is it 10%? 3 Hands per hour.

If all are max raked you are paying 12 bucks an hour to play aren't you?

Just a thought