What? I honestly don't get what you're trying to say here. Where does the $100 "could have" cost come from?

This is a rather complex issue, but I think it boils down to this: the primary benefit of the pot raked system versus the hourly rake system is that, as an individual poker player, you only pay rake to the extent you choose to play hands. In the hourly system, you pay rake whether you play every hand you are dealt or whether you play zero hands all session long. So, if you are the type of every to play tons of hands, then you would likely benefit from the hourly system because the flat fee you would pay every hour would very likely be less than the amount of rake taken from the numerous pots you tend to play. On the other hand, if you play fewer hands (which generally speaking, TAG and tight profitable players do), then you are likely to benefit from the pot raked system because the amount of rake taken from the few pots you play is likely to be less than the flat hourly fee you would play in the hourly system.

Just to be clear, I am limiting my analysis to small stakes games like 1-2 and 1-3 (games I tend to play). I'm not quite sure how the math would work at say 2-5, but certainly anything higher than that will likely benefit from the hourly system.

It becomes clear when you realize how many pots you would have to play in, say, a 1-2 game that takes $6 max rake in order equal the 13 dollars per hour you would have to pay at these hourly places. In 1 hour, in order to pay 13 bucks in rake in the pot raked system, you would have to be involved in at least 4.5 heads up pots that equal or exceed $60-per-pot. That equals 1.5 hands (again, in pots that equal or exceed $60-per-pot) every 20 minutes. Are you the type of player that tends to play this amount of hands? If not, pot raked is better. If so, then hourly rake is better.

You still have not wrapped your head around the fact that players in the casino who go home broke pay $0 in rake, and yet that rake is still paid.

I truly and honestly do not understand what you are saying. Maybe I'm just ignorant to the more subtle point you are making, so please help me understand. I am open to being wrong or incorrect on the issue, but I guess I am going to need to see it explained better. How does a player who goes broke -- meaning they lost their money in a poker game -- not pay any rake?

If Joe Blow walks into a poker room with $100, sits down at a 1-2 table, and shoves all-in on the first hand he is dealt and loses to the one opponent who called.... the house takes its rake from the pot which was contributed to equally from Joe Blow and the one opponent. How is that not paying rake? Joe Blow put money into the pot, a big chunk of which his opponent took from Joe Blow and a small part of which the poker room took from Joe Blow.

this guy knows what he is talking about, theres been many times im glad im in a pot raked game and not a time raked game. often in a time raked game i go 3 hours without winning even 1 pot and am out an extra $30-40 in time fees which i would be out zero in an actual casino outside of texas. People who play solid and tight are hurt greatly when theyre forced to pay time. this is why im so glad the new resorts world in vegas isnt charging time in their PLO

The fact that SevenCard agrees with you should tell you all you need to know. I'll give you a rudimentary example.

Basically the root of the argument is that with the time rake (in Texas) all the money stays on the table so stacks continue to grow which is always going to be better for the good players. With the "pot" rake, chips are coming off the table each hand. Over the course of a 6-8 hour session that is huge. Now the nits like SevenCard will argue that in the time rake example they still have to pay time even though they may play 1 hand in 3 hours so "pot" rake is better for them overall. The point DC was making is every hand that "pot" rake is slowly being taken off the table so when SevenCard finally gets his Aces and plays a hand he wins less because over time his opponents stack (who has been playing a lot of hands) is a lot smaller than it would have been if none of those chips had been extracted off the table during that entire session he was waiting for his Aces.

If Joe Blow gets felted, the amount of rake paid has no impact on Joe Blow. If he plays 1 hr and loses his $100, then he goes home $100 poorer. Contrast that with a Texas card room where if he plays for 1 hr, he loses his $100 AND he also pays $13 to play for the hour.

Imagine Joe Blow is a player that likes to play and win lots of pots. In the 1 hr that he played Joe Blow won multiple pots from which $20 in rake was taken. Whether there was $20 in rake taken or $50 in rake taken, is irrelevant to Joe Blow if he is felted because he goes home $100 poorer regardless. However, there is an impact to the player that felts Joe Blow.

If Maria Pro felts Joe Blow in a normal casino raked game she will win $20 less than she would have in a Texas card room because Joe Blow likes to play and win lots of pots and $20 has been removed from his stack in the form of rake. That single hand of poker costs Maria Pro more money than she pays for an hour of play at a Texas card room.

In a casino, the players that are materially impacted by rake/fees are the players that leave with money. In a Texas card room all players share that burden, whether they leave with money or not.

BTW, what you also may not be realizing is that there are players that get felted on the regular, far moreso than other players. Some players never leave the casino the money. Other players always try to cover the table at all times and rarely get felted or leave when they have $0 on the table.

You're correct that with every hand in a pot rake system, money comes off the table. But you seem to imply that it is some sort of zero sum game, where a formula determines that X dollars will come off by the hour and never come back. But, of course, that isn't the case. That simply isn't true. The reason is because (a) players generally re-buy, or (b) if players don't re-buy, then there is typically a waiting list full of players ready to drop more money on the table.

So there isn't some huge continuous, never-ending decline of total money on the table over the course of the day for a given poker table. I just think you are over-emphasizing this part of the flow of a typical game in a pot rake system. This is what I think of when I see a lengthy waiting list, those are just more and more dollar bills ready to be slapped onto the table and put right into play.

TKK, google "opportunity cost." What people are telling you is that you are paying the rake regardless. you are just paying it in cash or in lost opportunities to win money that someone else poured down the rake hole.

It doesn't matter if they re-buy. The point is that if you win all of a $100 stack, that is better than winning all of an $80 stack. If your V paid $20 to rake and then you win his stack, guess what? You effectively paid $20 in rake.

I've not been glued to the Texas streams, but at least one of the rooms is allowing Players to tip from their stack and not just using 'tipping chips' or cash. This also impacts stacks IMO and (not in an attempt to derail, see Tipping Thread) but I always wait until the end of a down/shift/night before tipping Dealers so that those chips stay in my stack 'for multiplying' as much as possible.

One could also suggest that because you typically have to prepay for your hours, you are actually 'overpaying' the rake 'early' .. AND .. a Player may not be able to buy-in for as much since they have already paid the rake upon entry. Thus the opportunity to win 'all' of a Player's money is gone before he even gets a seat at the table. I could flip that and argue that since a Player can pay for 'rake' (hours) on a credit card that you actually do have an opportunity to win 'all' their cash-on-hand.

On an even bigger derail .. I saw in a Vlog that Resorts World either has, or will have soon, the ability to play a slot machine using the chip in your credit card. GL

if resorts does this, it will be such a high fee per $1000 compared to using the ATM for $7 that no one would ever do it if smart. also the dealers will hate u if u do this, because so much of the time u leave broke as soon as u lose the whole stack that they never get a penny this way.

If they are playing slot machines, odds are they aren't very smart.

That is an interesting argument. However, I don't buy it enough for me to prefer paying hourly versus out of the pots. For a couple of reasons.

First, I don't understand how you would go about calculating --- even reasonably accurately --- how much my villain has already contributed to rake from prior hands which, if villain had not done so, would have been in pots with me and which dollars I would have won. There are quite a few steps that get wrapped into this far-fetched idea. The first being: how much did villain contribute to rake? Are you counting the rake villain paid in the first few minutes of a session, just the rake villain has contributed during the course of sitting at the same poker table as me, or the rake villain has paid over the entire course of villain's poker life from the first time he sat down at a poker game until now? Because if you are counting the latter, then --- by your argument --- we are all losers in the long run because we've all made the rake being paid over the course of time so much so that we could never win enough in our lifetimes to overcome this fact.

Also, the same concept of "I would have won villain's rake dollars" applies in the reverse, villain would could won all the money me, as hero, has already dropped down the rake hole. And since this is true, there will be quite a few scenarios where villain beats me in out various hands thus reducing the rake-I-otherwise-would-have-won to an even marginally smaller extent. What I mean is, let's say villain and I play 100 total pots together. And I know he has already drowned $375 down the rake hole. So, knowing that variance will never realistically allow me to win all 100 pots with villain, I must win a high enough percentage of them to capture that otherwise drowned $375.

And that's the main problem, even if you are correct, the amount is so incalculable or small that it wouldn't make a difference. Plus, again, it assumes a number of things have to happen in order for it to be true: first, villain has to have paid a substantial amount of rake the amount of which concerns me and my wallet-fattening schemes at the poker table; second, I have to have been on most of the winning sides of the pots in which I am involved with villain, and villain has to have used the money he otherwise would have dropped down the rake hole. And then if all these things are true, then the amount has to have made a difference in my winning rate in a pot rake system versus an hourly rake system. So if you would like to go ahead and write a lengthy response proving the truth of this notion using mathematical formulas and such, then I'll listen.

That's a stretch to say "you" have paid it. Because again, you are assuming that if not drowned in the rake hole, it would have been in play for me to win and I would have won it. But regardless, I would like to hear how the actual math works out. Let's use the example of a $1-$2 NLHE stake level for ease. And assume a $6 max drop pot rake fee, compared to a $13-per-hour hourly fee system. Please break it down and explain the math behind let's an average player losing opportunity cost from, say, a 500 hour sample size at these stakes. Also, assume the player is neither a super nit nor a super LAG - somewhere in between, playing a very "average" number of hands per hour in both systems.

Good grief. How is this so hard to understand?

Is there potential to win more money if
A)ALL the money stays on the table, in play
or
B)$5 per hand ($150 per hour?) is taken off of the table

It's that simple. Especially when people are prepaying their time charges via credit card, not even affecting how much they buy in for.

Interesting and informative responses for both rake and timed. Personally, I prefer whichever results in overall less money coming off the table. I play pretty snug but am more than happy to pay $10 an hour at 52 Social vs the $5+$2 each hand taken in Louisiana and other places I have played over the past few years. At $10, or even $12 an hour at 52 Social this works out to $80-$96 an hour compared to the approximate $175 an hour from the Louisiana casinos (25 hands x $7).

what hes forgetting is the vast majority of those 25 hands end on the flop or preflop, or at some point long before the pot hits $50 for the maximum rake. so id say its less than half of $175 per hour.

Sounds like you play in some bad games.

What's up with Dallas area, is Champions & 52 social opening over that way or are those ideas dust?

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk

52 Social was blocked from opening its location.

Texas State Representative Matt Shaheen (Republican) and Dallas City Council Member for District 12 Cara Mendelsohn are working to prevent Champions from opening its location as well.

Sounds awful. Table change please!

$10 per hour? Ok, that is vastly more reasonable than $13 per hour that I have heard from some places. Look, at some point a reasonable hourly rate would change my mind. I doubt even $10 might do that, but still the point remains the same.

What you all are not really considering is an actual, real-life sample of a player contributing as much as $13 to the rake in a pot rake system. Seriously, stop looking at this thread for a second, sit back, and figure out in your head how many hands/pots you have to play in a standard low stakes poker game in pot rake that will equal as much as $13 every hour. Once you do this, you will truly understand how high that can be. And how active and "loosey goosey" you would have to play every hour in a pot raked game to comprise the seat fee in an hourly game.

LoL you still can't wrap your head around how it works. That's ok, if you are a nit you should go ahead and make the hour long trip to the casino instead and pay $6+1.

Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. In fact, that's basically my entire argument, that it isn't even close to being a simple problem.

If a poker room disallowed re-buys or new players entering a game, then your 2 choices outlined above would be true. Because in that scenario, there would literally be no way for new dollars to find their way onto the table. The amount of money on the table would represent a continuously declining amount that eventually would have to end in zero......... But we don't live in that world. Rather, we live in the reality where two factors weaken your rather insular view of how a real pot raked game plays: (1) any player can re-buy for either the minimum or maximum buy-in amount if they lose their stack, and (2) if a player leaves the table, a new player is almost always brought in to replace them, with their fresh dollars now in play. This means that, in the normal flow of most games, the amount of money on the table stays roughly the same or even gets higher; or even if does neither of those things, it almost never just continuously declines as your argument must assume it to do so. So your argument has a false assumption built into it.

Don't play in Texas then, and why are you in this thread?

Any idea where Champions moved to in Houston?

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk