WE ARE MOVING SOON, We will be switcing forum software in the coming days. I am not sure of the exact time and date but sometime this week. I will do my best to make sure the disruption is as little as possible but the site could be down for a good hour for the move. If you want to know about the new forum sofware please visit this Discussion
Rake vs. Seat Charge - Which is Better?
Hi all,
I have a couple of questions regarding rakes and seat charges:
1) What method do most Canadian casinos use (especially in Ontario)?
2) What are the normal amounts charged for each?
3) From a player-perspective, which is more favourable? I realize that this will depend on the answer to question #2, and I also realize that it is hard to compare apples to oranges, but I am looking for your opinions on this one more than a concrete answer.
If this topic has already been discussed elsewhere on the forum, I apologize...I'm still figuring out how everything on this site works (including the search option)!
Thanks in advance.
I have a couple of questions regarding rakes and seat charges:
1) What method do most Canadian casinos use (especially in Ontario)?
2) What are the normal amounts charged for each?
3) From a player-perspective, which is more favourable? I realize that this will depend on the answer to question #2, and I also realize that it is hard to compare apples to oranges, but I am looking for your opinions on this one more than a concrete answer.
If this topic has already been discussed elsewhere on the forum, I apologize...I'm still figuring out how everything on this site works (including the search option)!
Thanks in advance.
Comments
As for which is better, it depends on if you win or lose. If you lose every hand it will not cost you anymore to play when the hands are raked, however it you win every hand you would rather pay the $16 then be raked every hand. Now we don't always win or lose every hand, so you will have to find out which is better for you.
The dealers I hear can be slow at time and that will really hurt the amount of hands you can play. And I agree with what the person above me said!
IMO, this is a dubious way to think about the rake. Actually winning or losing pots is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a rake takes some of your (potential) equity away from all of the pots you play. The rake is working against you whether you win or lose those pots.
A simple way to think about it is that a rake always reduces your pot-odds at every decision point you have. A time charge does not. Therefore, in general, a tight player prefers a raked game, and a loose pre-flop prefers a time charge.
Obviously it's the other way around in practise, since a player generally cannot choose which method of drop the house uses. You should play slightly tighter than usual in a raked game, and exactly as tight as usual in a time charged game.
[By "usual", I mean if you were playing zero-sum poker; i.e. no house drop of any kind.]
ScottyZ
BTW: When I keep my stats I do work in the amount of rake I pay calculated based on every hand I play whether I win or not or even put money into the pot. Basically if I am dealt cards in the hand I paid a rake.
Sure, I guess. This is a special case. On average, you will win some hands. (If not, you have bigger things to worry about than whether you are being charged a rake or a session fee.)
This example actually demonstrates well the idea that you play a little looser in time charge games than you would in raked games. You *can't* just sit there like a rock losing every hand. (But, you shouldn't play looser than you would in the exact same zero drop game.)
If you like extreme cases, what happens if you played 30 hands in one hour, and win every single hand? Well, I for one would be happy, but I'd be much *more* happy if I paid a $10 session fee instead of probably well over $100 in rake.
ScottyZ
I guess nobody has answered the basic questions yet.
The ones I know are:
Brantford
5-10 Raked $1 per $10, max $5
10-20 Time charge $5 per half-hour
20-40 Time charge $7 per half-hour
Point Edward (Sarnia)
5-10 Raked $1 per $10, max $5
10-20 Time charge $5 per half-hour
[I have never seen 20-40 going there myself.]
Port Perry
5-10 Raked $1 per $10, max $5
[I'm not positive about the rest, my guess is same as Brantford.]
ScottyZ
Of course.
My point is if you have never been to a Casino table and are not sure were you stand and have some nervous jitters, a rake is "safer" (It may cost you more in winnings but you will not lose more money then you play). Let me reiterate that I completely agree with the rake paid theory that you pay in every hand but the physical money exchange just isn't there.
In a good Casino you are dealt about 25 hands per hour. On Average, you will see the flop 20% of the time. That means you will be see the flop 5 times per hour. On average, you'll likely win 20% of the pots you see the flop, that means you will win 1 hand per hour. From this understanding you'll either pay the max rake or somewhere near it, which would be way less than a rake charge of say ($14/hr)
Well, players do typically pay time charges from their stacks on the table, so even for new players, it's not like money is at risk beyond what they decided to buy in for.
Also, a time charge game might be better for a beginner for the following reason. As I was mentioning above, you prefer to play tighter in a raked game. This is basically because you get more and more exposed to the rake each time you are putting money into pots, whether you end up *winning or losing* the pots. For example, the rake hurts players more when they play too many starting hands, or chase thin draws and second best hands post-flop. Sound like things a beginner would do?
Technically, it's not actually putting more money into the pot that exposes you to the rake. It is the fact that by putting more money into the put, you are adding additional *decisions* you have to make during the hand. Remember that the rake is working by way of cutting into your pot odds at every decision point. When you have more decision points (e.g. by playing too loosely), the rake hurts you more than a time charge would.
An overly tight player prefers a raked game, and an overly loose players prefers prefer a time charge game (all else being equal). I have not yet seen a beginner in the first category. 8)
But like I said already, you rarely get a choice of house drop type. A beginner should probably stick to the lowest limit at first regardless of the house drop structure.
I don't think either type is better necessarily. It depends on a lot of things. For example, what limit(s) you're talking about, what amount the rake and time charge actually are, whether you prefer to play somewhat tighter than usual in a raked game, whether your opponents know that they should play somewhat tighter in a raked game, etc.
At Brantford, the expected rake at the 5-10 per hour per table is in the $125-$150 range, and the time charge at the 10-20 game is exactly $100 per hour per table. Does this mean table charge is a better method of house drop for the players? No, in this case the house drop is much more favorable to the players at the 10-20 and it just happens to be a time charge.
ScottyZ
20% of 20% seems eerily low to me though, as I would expect that a tight 20% flop style should be looking pretty good post-flop....hopefully netting more than a 1 in 5 post-flop win rate.
If you only win one hand out of every 25 (on average, long term) then you are probably playing too tight, passive, and/or weak. I would suspect that even the rockiest of all rocks wins more than 4% of hands (although I have absolutely nothing to support this claim)
At Brantford, they take $5 rake out of most pots in a $5-$10 game. If you see 30 hands per hour and you play tighter than most, you should win an average of about 2 pots per hour (30 hands, 10 players, so the average is 3 per hour... but if you play tighter you win fewer). So you probably pay about $10 an hour.... one big bet per hour. This is A LOT.
Also at Brantford, they take a $5 session fee per half hour out of the $10/$20 game. This is still $10 an hour, but it's in a bigger game. One small bet per hour... still a lot, but, well, only half as much. Undoubtedly a better deal.
As you keep going up in limits the deal gets better. $6 per half hour for $15/$30 (spread only occasionally, but I have played in it). $12 per hour, 80% of a small bet per hour.
$7 per half hour for $20/$40. $14 per hour = 70% of a small bet per hour.
$8 per half hour (I think???) for $30/$60 = $16 per hour = 53% of a small bet per hour
$9 per half hour for $50/$100 = $18 per hour = 36% of a small bet per hour.
Conclusion: The rake is a rip-off. One big bet per hour is a very very VERY large amount. Luckily the game is usually soft enough that it is still easily beatable... just not by as much as it would be if the rake was more reasonable.
Keith
The effect of the rake on an individual player has nothing to do with how many pots he/she wins.
The rake is at work at every decision point you make, because it cuts down your pot (or implied) odds. It is irrelevant whether or not the pot odds are potential or realized.
ScottyZ
Yes.
However, the difference in player skill between the two levels is pretty incredible.
ScottyZ
Of course it does. If you win fewer pots you pay less rake. A tight player plays less rake than a loose player (long term), precisely because he wins fewer pots (long term). I hate to state the obvious... I understand that you know this... but I don't understand why you think it has nothing to do with how the rake effects the individual player.
This is certainly true. But it doesn't imply your first statement. Also, it's only relevant in a minority of cases, where your decision would change based upon a $5 difference in pot size. Most of the time (particularly post-flop) your correct play is the same whether or not the pot is going to be raked. For example, it doesn't matter if you're getting 10-1 or 9.5-1 to draw to a 5-1 shot... you do it anyway.
Keith
Well, as I point out later in the post, the $5-$10 game is still very beatable.
However... there are plenty of bad players at $10-$20 too. There are also plenty of good players who cost themselves a lot of money by "playing backwards" (as Lou Kreiger calls it) or who are victims of "Fancy Play Syndrome" (as Mike Caro calls it). For a decent player who is capable of changing his style of play based on the "texture" of the game and his opponents, I believe that you can make A LOT more money (long term, per hour) at $10-$20 than at $5-$10. You need a bankroll for it though.... the players are (in general) much more aggressive at $10-$20, which makes the pots bigger, which makes the swings better. Off the top of my head, I would guess that even though the stakes are only double, the bankroll requirements are triple or maybe even more.
Playing Backwards: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/?a_id=13186
Fancy Play Syndrome: http://www2.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/caro24.htm (there is a much more complete article on this subject somewhere on poker1.com, but that site seems to be down right now. Still, there's a blurb about FPS at the bottom of this link)
Anyway, learn to deal with these players (and avoid becoming one yourself... trust me on this one) and the $10-$20 can be a goldmine.
Keith
The rake affects your equity in *all* pots. Whether you win or lose those pots is irrelevant.
Suppose you have a very rough session in a raked game and you played well but didn't happen win a pot. It would be very false to conclude, "I was not affected by the fact that there was a rake during that particular session because I won no pots."
Loose players are more affected by the rake, but not exactly because they win more pots. It's because they are making more decisions during hands, and the rake affects (decreases) the equity of each decision.
It might sound like hair-splitting, but I guess I'm just trying to distinguish between winning pots and having equity in pots.
ScottyZ