If you don't know what @randowhale is, check its latest post here:

@randowhale/randowhale-s-voting-range-has-been-increased-reward-your-friends-with-an-additional-vote-today

Now, I don't think @randowhale is a great idea, but it's there and why wouldn't you use it ...
I like it as a reply to whaleshares, which I think is a really bad idea.
However, I'm not here to judge this stuff, but to give you a little suggestion.

Just for completeness, this is the curation reward over time:

This means, if you vote before the 30 minute-mark, you will get a penalty on your curation rewards (the cut off rewards go to the author of the post).
This was implemented to take away the advantage of voting-bots, which could upvote extremely fast during the first seconds.

But this isn't where I'm getting at.

This is an idealized curation rewards/r_shares graph:

_{My attempt at sketching a hyperbola ...}

The curation rewards are calculated with the square root of the r_shares. This should result in a curve like above, or similar.

r_shares are calculated by Steem Power, Voting Power and Voting Weight.
(whales have a stronger vote than minnows -> more r_shares)

This curve means, that curators get the most curation rewards, when they vote for a post, which hasn't yet received many r_shares.

That is why, I don't recommend letting the @randowhale vote on your post right after you have written it. It makes it less attractive to vote on for manual curators, who want to maximize curation rewards.

For @randowhale it doesn't matter, how old the post is. (Unless of course it's too old to be voted for) @randowhale will vote regardless.

The above curve doesn't take into account, how you get more rewards for votes coming in after your own vote. This is also part of the calculation and means, that all your curators benefit even more, when @randowhale votes after them and not before.

TL;DR: Use @randowhale after your readers have voted for your post.