Famous last words.

No, I'm talking about the fact that I chop with a lot of complete fish.

I'm not the world's best heads-up player (by far!), but I'm not the worst either. I have gotten quite a bit better at it from online play and practice against GTO bots.

But I'm sure if you put me heads up with Jon Locke or jdr or Death Donkey, I'd get my butt kicked.

Then why chop in that circumstance. Sounds like you're leaving money on the table.

I imagine for the same reason people here preach about not doing predatory seat changing. It's more fish-friendly to chop.

Personally I've seen a lot more people get offended by someone not chopping than I ever have seen someone get offended by seat changes.

Yes, the not-so-serious rec perspective.

This is likely a product of the stakes you play. 8-16 people will surely be more pissed about seat changing, 20-40 to 40-80 probably a wash but only because some people are pissed they are forced to play with a hi rake. 40-80+ time rake and seat changing is much worse

I used to play plenty of 10/20 with time charge, now lots of 20/40 with time charge. Not that many people are upset about non-chopping, but still far more than with seat changing.

Play bigger and see

I believe you. But this question was about 20/40, and not many on the forums play bigger than that anyway.

All the more reason for them to learn how to behave if they ever do

I'd rather them learn how to behave now.

I am curious.
Is Time charge ends up at the same "rake" as the rake charge table ?

I figure that FR, it doesn't change much because the amount of hands played seem pretty low anyway.
But I guess when it gets short to 6max and below, playing a time charge game should have a big impact positively compare to the rake charge game?

Of course it depends on how much is charged, but in any place I have ever played, the time charge was a better deal for almost all players (full or short handed) than the rake at the same place. The only exception might be someone who playes extremely tightly in a full game might do better with a rake.

Much rather have rake in draw games.

In general, time and rake trend towards being a wash, but if time will benefit anyone, it's the loose, action players (as they enter more pots, they win more pots and by definition, pay more in rake).

Most draw games are 1-2 and bigger. Has to be time

And that's just not fair for the nit pros, so they insist on time pots.

Time pots are the worst thing ever. I'm usually the biggest nit at the table in these games and I always argue against time pots.

Never had experience with time pots but they definitely sound like the worst thing ever.

where's the maff? Mine's horrible, but i'll start.

if SB opens 75% and BB defends 95%, then there is going to be a flop 71.125% of the time.

over 100 hands, $426.75 (assuming $6 rake) is going down the hole between the two players.

At 20-40, this is a rake factor 10.67 BB/100 hands.
If I win on average 50% of the pots then I'm likely losing 5.34 BB/100 hand.

The only way to do better than -5.34 BB/100 is if
a) villain is not showdown bound
- I'm gonna win more big pots (super positive)
- I'm gonna end up with a higher rake burden (slight negative)
b) villain is not contesting enough from the SB
- villain is folding more, so I'm winning more small pots (positive)
- less pots are contested, so my rake factor goes down (slight positive)
- in contested pots, I'm going to lose more than my fair share (negative)
- in contested pots, rake factor goes down a little since I'm winning less pots (slight positive)
c) villain is folding the BB too much
- same as b

I'm not sure how the maff works here. I'm not sure if most villains play badly enough for me to end up with an edge. 5.34 BB/100 seems like a huge burden. Halp?

Time flops ftw

Fyw?

edited

Not following this, including why you begin with an estimate of the number of HU pots that get played.

Assuming each player pays time equal to the max rake of a single hand, the table as a whole roughly breaks even after n raked hands, where n is the number of players. The table nets the delta between the total number of raked hands per down and n.

We can quibble over whether that money is evenly distributed between the players, but I think it is hard to argue that anyone is worse off if less total money gets dropped.

I think you'd have to be in a game that is either (a) very slow, or (b) is seeing almost no flops to prefer a rake structure over a time structure.

Pretty sure tiger was trying to figure out if he has enough edge to not be chopping at 20/40; nothing to do with the recent posts about time vs rake.