Is a blind on the button good or bad for a no-limit hold'em game? If you had the choice to play 2-3-5 with 2 on the button or 5-5 with nothing on the button, which would you prefer? This game has a $5 per hand rake for a full game if there is a flop and a $1 rake for no flop. A player who "chops" is more regular than one who doesn't in this game and I wonder which structure is more conducive to less "chopping." I need some feed back on this because I may have an influence on this games future. Thank you

Rake and blinds determine how many hands you play. So....

2-3-5 no flop no drop you play more laggy to steal and certainly steal with way more hands on the button since you already put in $2. A simple investment of $13 to win $10 is a good deal.

5-5 with $3 take out no flop, $4 taken out flop, $5 if pot is $20 or more. Now stealing SUCKs. limping behind is better or raising behind. Raising 1st in to steal is horrible. You want to play big pots to negate the rake.

5-5 no flop no drop conforms to stealing more but you dont play as many button hands for steals and limp behind.

Also look at the stack sizes going in. Most of our local casinos suck for LAG play. $3 take on a 1-2-2 blinds (1/2) with $4 limps and 1/2 the table buys in for $60. They take $6 total (with BBJP) if the pot is over $20 and of course with $4 limps it is. So you can only play tight here.

But one casino is 1-1-2 $3 rake no flop no drop. The players buy in at least $100 and its $2 limps. The difference is huge.

So think about the rake, the blinds, the players buyin tendencies to select a casino.