I apologize in advance if this is not posted in the right forum.

I play 1/2 NL - $100 max buy-in at a local casino. Up until recently, the rake was a max of $4 per hand. They now require a "session fee" of $5 per player per half-hour with no rake, which they collect at the dealer change.

This session fee has caused quite a debate among the regulars. A number of playeres insist that the change was put in place for the casino's best interest and isn't fair to the players, while the floor maintains it is a positive for all of the parties concenred (house, dealers and players).

Thoughts... opinions... incoherent ramlbings?

At a live casino you get dealt about 25-30 hands per hour. If the max rake is collected every hand, then the house gets $4 * 25 hands every hour which is $100

If the time charge is $5 per half hour ($10 /hr) times a 10 player table then they still get $100 / hr. Theres no difference

either way, i doubt there is a way for it to be good for all parties involved. Either the casino makes more money or they take less. I'm not sure why they would do it if they make the same of less money.

Since not all pots will get raked the max, charging $10 an hour from each person assures they get paid as if all hands were max rakes as Ice's calculations show.

It is good if you are a LAG, bad if you are a Rock.

It may encourage more action.

exactly. if you play very few hands rake is good because you are rfarely subjected to it. if you play every hand time charge is much much better.
if its a higher limit game time charge is always much better
matty

Think about it ... you only pay the rake if you win the hand. The rake comes out of the pot you just won. With the time fee, everyone shares in the expense equally.

Bottom line, casinos make more money with a time rake or else they wouldnt use it. One table, 10 players for only 15 hours per day equals $547,500 per year per table in rake. You have to beat the 1-2 NL game for $10 an hour just to break even. If your able to beat the game for $30 an hour, 33% of your winnings goes to the rake, not including taxes you have to pay on your winnings. Just remember if your going to put a 10 hour session in, your already down one buy-in.

The disturbing thing about this is that it is 1/2 max buy $100... I can see a no max game where there are frequently stacks $500 plus but in in a game that is limited to $100 this just seems silly.

As an economist, I just had to put my 2 cents in on this issue. It is absolutely possible that this could benefit winning players, and much too simplistic to think if it benefits the casino it can’t benefit ALL winning players too. I am a strong believer that nothing a casino does can help/hurt a losing player; it is just a matter of how long it takes them to lose everything(or learn to win), so I am going to factor losing players out of my analysis.

How do you create a win/win situation? Create efficiency! Think of the rake as a tax. A time-based rake would be like a flat-rate tax. In theory, most people agree that a flat rate would create a more efficient economy(the fact that it is not used has more to do with equality issues) People would know no matter how much they earn, they only have to pay X dollars in tax so it would become more profitable for them to earn each dollar. In poker terms, it would create efficiency in at least two main ways. First, it would allow players to play more hands. Any hand with a + EV could and should be played, as opposed to just hand + EV high enough to cover the rake. It would also create efficiency in allowing people to bet freely. Ever been in a situation where you have the nut, but suspect your opponent does too so you have to decide whether or not to push it? Inefficient.

As an economist, I just had to put my 2 cents in on this issue. It is absolutely possible that this could benefit winning players, and much too simplistic to think if it benefits the casino it can’t benefit ALL winning players too. I am a strong believer that nothing a casino does can help/hurt a losing player; it is just a matter of how long it takes them to lose everything(or learn to win), so I am going to factor losing players out of my analysis.

How do you create a win/win situation? Create efficiency! Think of the rake as a tax. A time-based rake would be like a flat-rate tax. In theory, most people agree that a flat tax would create a more efficient economy(the fact that it is not used has more to do with equality issues) People would know no matter how much they earn, they only have to pay X dollars in tax so it would become more profitable for them to earn each dollar. In poker terms, it would create efficiency in at least two main ways. First, it would allow players to play more hands. Any hand with a + EV could and should be played, as opposed to just hand + EV high enough to cover the rake. It would also create efficiency in allowing people to bet freely. Ever been in a situation where you have the nut, but suspect your opponent does too so you have to decide whether or not to push it? Inefficient.

If you say that the flat tax is not used because equality issues, that means that the people that make more money and therefore have the power, don't want the tax. Therefore, it isn't good for them. In the casino situation, wouldn't these people be the winning players?

Also, I don't think people calculate +EV including the rake like that. I don't know anyone that said "this had is likely to win me $3 but the rake is $4 so I won't play it."

The main reason for casinos introducing a flat half hourly or hourly "Drop" or table charge is that it speeds the game up as the dealer is not required to split the rake from each hand as the money comes into the pot and is pushed to the winner. Therefore, more hands per hour should be possible. This should benefit the players (obviously) AND the house, providing the drop takes the same amount of money off the table as the rake would, which obviously won't always be the case. In a tight game, the drop will presumably take a lot more off the table than the rake. The drop MAY just take a little less off the table if the dealing is very fast and the hands are all efficiently played with no arguments or floorman/dealer interjections, although that seems a bit of a stretch as pretty much every hand would have to be maximum raked in the previous system to take more money off the table than the drop, even given this scenario.

In summary, the drop is liable to take slightly more money off the table than the rake given the charging texture you described, but you may get an extra 2-3 hands per hour as a result of the change so the end result is likely to be negligible, at least in the short term. Casinos introduce drops because they are more profitable in hourly terms for the table and because they make the dealer's life easier. In general, they're not beneficial to the average tight, winning player but that of course will depend totally on the texture and structure of the game. In your case, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

Monk
xxxxx