Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragequit99
I don't know if it makes sense to assume you pay all the rake in pots you win and no rake otherwise. Reality is whenever you contribute chips to a pot that's raked, you paid some rake. A player how never wins a pot still provides profit to the casino via rake.
So it may be an easy way to estimate rake paid but surely not totally accurate?
From my perspective, whether the pots I lost are raked or not doesn't make a difference. It's lost money to me either way.
Moreover, it makes sense to calculate rake by looking at your pots won, because the number and the size of the pots you win make a difference in the way the rake costs you as a proportion of your winnings or losses. I.e. a fish which plays 60% of his hands might be winning 20-25% of them which means they pay for 4 pots per hour which equals $20 of rake per hour.
Moreover, I just came up with the new way of looking at this. I know that in my local casino, the 5/10 game is time raked at $14 per hour. That's 1.5 BB per hour for each player.
However, from the point of view of the casino, each table has the same operating cost regardless of its stakes. i.e a 1/2 table has absolutely the same cost as a 5/10 table. So, if I were a casino operator, it would make sense for me to shoot for making the same money out of each table, perhaps trying to make a bit more where I can get away with it like the 5/10 game where the rake is such a low percentage of the money played.
So the $14 each players pays at the 5/10 tables is probably a very strong hint at how much each player pays on average at a 1/2 or a 2/5 table.
So assuming that a 2/5 and 1/2 player also pay around $14 an hour -probably even less- isn't a bad way of looking at it IMO. This also makes sense in explaining why the rake is such a burden in 1/2 as it's probably 5-7BB per hour whereas in 2/5 it's 2-2.5BB per hour.