Quote:
Originally Posted by plopbc
Crown Casino in Melbourne Australia has recently raised their rake from 10% capped at $15 to 10% capped at $25
Also they have stopped offering 1/3
Lowest stakes now are 2/5 with optional straddle, buy in 300-1000
5/10 optional straddle is the same rake with buy in from 500-1500
Say I had a win rate of $30 per hour at 2/5 when the rake was capped at $15
What would you expect that win rate to be with the new $25 cap?
I have not played a session since the rake increase but I assume there are many 1/3 players buying in for 300 at the 2/5 tables which is not good.
I've done a few rough calcs on the impact of the $25 cap on the 2/5 game at Crown. In short, my estimate is that the $25 cap, on average, will reduce win-rates by 2 bbs per hour.
The week before the introduction of the $25 cap, I counted the rake taken, over a period of one hour, on four separate tables at Crown. While the sample is clearly too small to be conclusive, I found the range of the times the $15 cap was reached to be relatively tight (between 10 and 12, with the hands per hour between 29 and 37). On average the $15 cap was reached 35%. I didn't record how often the straddle was on in this sample, but, as you'd expect, the cap appeared to be reached more often if there was a straddle.
Generally, if there was a straddle and there was a bet on river, the $15 cap was reached. If there were more than two players in a pot that was bet on the flop and turn, the $15 cap was likely reached. As you know, the 2/5 games at Crown often go multiway, over multiple streets, so the chances of the pot being $250 or more are relatively high.
Anyhow, I believe the best approach to calculating the impact of the $25 cap on win-rates is to ask how often there will a pot be greater than $150 and how often will there be a pot of at least $250. If we safely assume that 35% of the time a pot will reach $150, then I'm guessing, based on my experience of these games, around 70% of these $150 pots will reach $250. So, if we multiple 0.75 by 0.35 we get 26.25%.
If we assume 33 hands per hour, with 8 players at the table, that means, on average, we're individually paying rake on 4 hands per hour. So that means 1/4 of these hands (roughly 26.25% of the time) we will pay $10 more per hour (2bbs) than we would if the cap was $15 rather than $25.
Of course, we have to consider the fact that winning players pay more rake on average because they win a greater percentage of pots played. There is also the consideration of relative VPIP and how often a player wins when they get to the river. Finally, the impact of the straddle and $1000 buy-in are significant. I would be interested in data on how often pots get comparatively large (e.g > $300) and whether the EV of winning players is much greater in these situations (which, intuitively, I believe is the case, as goobledygeek hints at by talking about the pot-size to rake ratio).
Much of the above is needless speculation given that I haven't played since the rake increase and have no plans on doing so, either. If you were beating the game for 6bbs per hour, you were doing very well, considering you were probably paying 7bbs in rake per hour. Now you'll probably be paying 9bbs per hour in rake. So, to maintain your win-rate you'll have to be 15 bbs
better per hour than other players at the table --- that's a tough ask. In short, as you probably know, the minimum wage in Melbourne is around $23 per hour. I would say the very best 2/5 players will struggle to earn more than this figure now that dealers at Crown are able to drop a green chip into the box.