I’ve always looked at rake vs time like this:
10% rake, $5max - my guess is most live games play at a rate of around 20-25 hands an hour. Let’s say 25 for easy math. Let’s also assume that the average rake per pot is $4. Again, just my estimate. So that’s $100 raked per hour.
$10/hr seat rental game(full ring)- $90/hour.
Assuming my numbers are correct, which they could very well be dead wrong, the seat rental fee model is better for the players.
Now, if a cardhouse is charging a seat rental, they will likely not have shufflers. It makes zero sense for them to speed the game up. So bring the average hands per hour down to 20, or even less if the dealers are green. With these numbers, rake is better.
TL;DR - Hands per hour is the most important factor in determining if seat rental or raked pots are better for you.
Not a rant, just up after a long session.
From my experience the time/rake dollar per hour argument, although having many merits, has one major deficiency and that is the exclusion of the ‘player-style’ factor as someone else has mentioned.
As to the hourly-rate card room’s best interest in terms of hands per hour:
....“Now, if a cardhouse is charging a seat rental, they will likely not have shufflers. It makes zero sense for them to speed the game up.”
I will say that rooms want the most hands per hour they can get. They obviously want the most time paid as well. Which does mean they want to be running as many hours as possible but the quality of those hours and the frequency of those hours need to be considered as well.
The number of collective buy-ins are what cause action, and action is what keeps games running and rooms open.
Most buy-ins that fuel a game are from degens and big fish who hate slow games more than anyone. They crave fast action.
Slowing down games through fewer hands per hour to make more from time collected at a table is a losing proposition for a room.
A few points from a room’s long-term perspective:
•No one likes slow dealers (they will go elsewhere.)
•dealers need to make money (and fast good dealers find other gigs if action is too slow) more hands more income.
•players are highly annoyed paying time when they see fewer hands than they should be getting. And subsequently tip less
• a series of slow-paced games full of nits with little action (say a few days worth) can kill the action for weeks to come. (The regs will hunt elsewhere thus card rooms will give out more free time trying to get them back, all the while paying brushes and floors with the house taking less time paid.
• jackpots increase more slowly.
Good poker rooms know that fewer players means less time paid. Having full games is what brings players around. The players will know there is always a game that is bumping.
Lame rooms, where tables rarely make, bust frequently, or have shit action for extended periods of time don't fair well.
Simply put:
Having the best non-stop games in the surrounding area is what brings players with buyins, and that is directly influenced by the speed to which players can make a score or get even. Fewer hands per hour is good for no one in the long run.
