What's the difference? They're both ~$80-$90/hour.

Where are you getting your numbers? I think it will be much more than $90 an hour coming off the table now. 20/40 games are usually the fastest played games in the house, with the most hands per hour of any table. I didn't get the rake schedule, but I'm guessing most hands will me at max rake.

Plus it takes away the disincentive for people to walk (which happens a lot in the 10/20 game), which will force the remaining players to pay more rake. Finally, a raked game makes being tighter/nittier proper strategy, which is more boring and discourages action.

Only 20ish hands an hour in a limit game? Sounds low.

Boo.

Not cool...why the sudden change?

Don't know why, but don't understand "sudden"...it's not like they could gradually change a game from time charge to rake. Just was there last night and one of the floor people told me the game changed to a rake on Sunday. If I am back within the next few days I will try to check at what pot size each dollar is dropped. Didn't play last night because the list was too long and I was tired.

You're getting that many more hands per hour because the decisions aren't complicated? I've walked past limit tables and still see guys not know it's on them or tank on a bet or check decision.

What do you think NL tables get, hands/hour?
What do you think limit gets?
What is the factor causing the difference?

I know that limit games go much faster than no limit games, and higher limit games go faster than lower limit games. I almost never see anyone tank at a 20/40 game, and people generally have played enough poker to know when the action is on them, how to handle chips, etc. If you have only played 1/2 NL games you have become accustomed to the slowest games in the poker room.

I would guess that a typical 20/40 game gets about 30 hands an hour. More if you count the blind steals, although those are not raked so wouldn't count anyway.

That is way more coming off the table then. But does that matter in a non NL game? When you're stacking people it's a big factor. Are there a lot of allins where you're being forced to forego bets on later streets?

^ I'm not sure I understand this question. No, players at 20/40 rarely play short so there are very few all ins. But I don't understand how that is relevant to the rake vs. time charge issue.

For me personally rake is more relevant in a limit game than a NL game. In NL the blinds aren't eating you up so you can play very tightly and still be a winner. This is how I play NL, and I win so few hands that I would prefer a raked game to a timed game, even if the rake takes more money off the table overall. In a limit game I play more tightly than the average player, but I still play more pots and win more hands, enough that a reasonable time charge is almost always preferable to rake.

First dollar at $40, second at $80, third at $160, and fourth at $240.

Will this push the game to another casino? Could see Venetian try to grab this game by doing the timed rake instead of per hand.

Nah, it won't go anywhere else. Venetian has a $2 max rake on all games right now and they still can't get any LHE bigger than 4/8 going.

Limit games tend to have bigger pots and more action than NL games. Even a 4/8 game often has bigger pots on average than a 1/2 NL game. In NL pots can get big when people are making big bets. In limit, you won't see the big bets and all-ins, but you will see more bets (on average).

What casino would it be? Some people hate the Venetian for obvious reasons and refuse to play there at all, Aria doesn't even have enough room for all its NL games, and Wynn and Caesars don't get as many players (on average). Aria, Caesars and Wynn also can't get a single limit game to go anymore.

I don't like money coming off the table (waitress/floor/chip runner tips) because when you win an allin, you win less than you would have otherwise. So more rake means slightly shorter average stack, which hurts when you're winning allins. If you win a hand and a guy loses 8 big bets to you, it doesn't matter to you if he's left with 15 big bets or 14 when the hand is over.

All that the rake change matters is you paying rake. It was $10 an hour, now it's $4*hands won each hour. So the only change is for every hand you win per hour, you pay $X more where X = { [ (hands won) - (3) ] * $4 } + $2.

How many hands per hour do you win?

^ I would guess I typically win 4 hands an hour.

Ironically enough, there's a recent thread in LVL where someone is complaining about the exact opposite ruling at the B except that was a move from a limit to NL table.

I can't imagine what kind of reasoning someone could use to think he should be able to exceed table limits at a NL table because he is carrying the chips over from a limit game.

I can't c/p the link from my phone but it is in LVL and it's hilarious. OP is actually mad because he thought the transferring big stack 20/40 player's chips were in play and then asks for a comped room because he made different decisions operating under that assumption and thus missed out on money.

He also starts out saying "I'm not going to say what poker room but this guy transferred from 20/40" and then gets mad when people figure it out.

You have no reading comprehension skills. That post (which I thought was in this forum) didn't complain that chips coming from another game should play. It complained that chips which were on the table and appeared to be in play but were later ruled not to play

Sorry psands but I think I summed it reasonably well. Little harsh, sir.

You guys are talking about this thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27...ou-do-1524798/


I wish the employees working at the Bellagio would treat me this poorly.

Private Jets! I've clearly been complaining to the wrong people...
What a joke

I'll be out this week. Just wondering how the10-20 NL game is now days?