I guess there are 2 ways casinos make their money, either taking a rake or making you pay to play. The pay to play concept is fairly new to me as I just recently sat down at one in both New Orleans and Foxwoods.
I hated pay to play and dont understand the advantage to the casino. I guess they could better figure out how much they make at their poker tables but I would think they could make more with a rake.
At least with a rake only people winning hands are paying money. You could be card dead for 3 hours in a casino and it still costs you $36 when you pay to play.
actyper
11-01-07, 01:01 PM
Definately prefer rake
bauermj
11-01-07, 01:30 PM
Pay to play in New Orleans? At Harrahs? How does it work
pedagogue
11-01-07, 01:38 PM
I never checked out the poker room at harrah's (N.O.)....weird. I'm going to be back down in Jan, so I'll check it out then.
-p
El Scorcho
11-01-07, 01:56 PM
rake me, rake me my friend
time-charge sucks ass
SoSpacey
11-01-07, 05:10 PM
Pay to play in New Orleans? At Harrahs? How does it work
$6 every 30 minutes (dealer change)
namja
11-01-07, 05:10 PM
I must have played at about 20 different casinos. I've only seen the time-charge twice: at Foxwoods and at Taj Mahal (I think it's rake normally, but our table asked for time-charge and we were granted). Both times, it was $5 every 30 minutes. I usually play $1/$2 NL or higher, so typically, the rake is $3-$4 per pot. So given that structure, and assuming there is a flop and a rake is charged:
If you win 1~2 hands in 1 hour, then rake is better.
If you win 3 hands in 1 hour, then you "break even" in the rake.
If you win 4+ hands per hour, then the time-charge is better.
I shoot for about 3~4 hands per hour, so it doesn't bother me whether it's a rake or a time-charge.
El Scorcho
11-01-07, 06:17 PM
If you win 4+ hands per hour at 1/2 NL you probably don't give a shit about any rake.
Buy: