Rake paid per hour at full ring vs 8-max
I have 2 casinos in my area with different structures. One is 9 handed while the other is 8. I typically go to the 9 handed casino as I assume I'll pay less in rake in a 9 handed game. Is there a way to calculate how much more per hour I can expect to pay in rake in a 1/2 game with $6 max rake 8 handed?
6 Replies
For a stretch of 81 hours I tallied my rake at Live 1/2NL. Rake was 10% Max $5. During that time I was winning 10bb per hour on average. My average rake per hour was $5.94 (not including tip)
Why so little. Seems that poor players end up paying most of the rake because they are in many more hands and they win more pots.
This thread had a discussion on the topic of 8max vs 9max and there was a user there that claimed he has proven you pay more rake at 8max. Take it with a grain of salt though as I wasn’t on his side of the discussion. I did think it was an interesting discussion though.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/ne...
I think having played for a while I think it’s better to play 9max. That’s because on average the games seem to last longer 9max since more people can be walking at the same time.
It seems that you pay less at 9 handed on a per hour basis than you do heads up. What do you think happens in between there as you remove or add people? It's not "nothing".
It seems that you pay less at 9 handed on a per hour basis than you do heads up. What do you think happens in between there as you remove or add people? It's not "nothing".
But I think the question is irrelevant to begin with. It's not like we can sit down with clones in both games. I would rather sit down in a short handed tourist game than a full game of competent players. The rake is probably less for us in the short handed game than the full game for multiple reasons, and our win rate will be more for multiple reasons.
Time for some wrenches .. IMO ..
1) Rake is an 'opportunity' cost that the whole table pays. While you can specifically quantify it based on the pots you drag, rake in it's simplest form is chips that can no longer be won by anyone at the table.
2) Even if you cover all stacks, you 'paid' rake when you felt a Player .. especially an active Player .. since they have had their stack reduced 'so much' by the number of pots they've won previously. Again, chips not on the table can't be won anymore. (This won't be popular since there's almost no way to track the impact rake has had on everyone's stack.)
2A) You can have exceptions to this .. Australia's high rake typically causes Players to bust quicker .. which means full stacks are coming in more often. And online you have the Players who have auto-top-off (so they 'never' pay rake, so to speak). Rake technically comes out of the profit of the winning Player from the losing Player's chips, but if the losing Player immediately replaces those chips then they are still there to be won in the next hand.
8-max v 9- max v 10-max rake? You can again analyze actual and potential rake based on the extra work the Dealer must do per down with more Players. But I will still defer to table dynamic no matter the amount of Players.
I can comfortably suggest that the shorter the table that rake will decrease drastically .. more raise and take .. more chopping. And I can comfortably suggest that rake will skyrocket when the right short-handed table is up and running!
3) ?? I can't even imagine only 'paying' 5% or less of the rake per hour as defined as coming out of pots dragged. Sorry, I just don't play that style and I've been card dead for quite a few weeks IMO, but I'm still winning 1-3 hands per hour and it 'never' goes raise/take in my area. GL
