Maximum theoretical earn?

We hear a lot about the win rate of working pros (who spend most of their time in tight games playing against people of similar ability), but does anyone have any information on maximum theoretical win rate at limit poker given a game that is always super duper loose against totally terrible players? Specifically Omaha 8?


I can say for sure that it's possible to do better than two BB/hr in a pretty tough/tight (Mirage) $10/$20 so long as you make sure there is a live one or two in the game, but how much it theoretically possible to earn in a game full of total live ones?


Does the nature of limit poker and the balance of skill vs. luck prevent a long-term earn of much more than two BB/hr even if the game contains 6 or 7 players who are completely clueless (e.g., they will 3 bet bottom two pair on the flop and take them to the showdown no matter what -- they will be in at the showdown with any low, frequently one that was counterfeited somewhere along the way) and the pots are always 30 to 50 big bets.

pros (who spend most of their time in tight games playing against people of similar ability)


i dont think that pros play these games. i would imagine that they would exercise better game selection and would be looking to maximize thier profits as often as possible (of course sometimes hitting harder tables to test thier skill and build their egos).


any pros feel free to expalin why im wrong.


secondly i have heard that 3-3.5 bb per hour at lower limit games is the max, (more speculation than anything else) but i promise to post my live results in 900 hours to give my hourly rate (if i am still at 1.8 bb an hour i promise to buy several kegs) and this is against potentially ideal conditions. along with what i hope will be an honest description of my game should give an idea as to the possibilities.

tom c.

There some are loose, beatable, very low limit games, like 2-4 games with a 10% up to $4 rake. Some people beat these games for up to two big bets an hour. In actuality these good players are wasting their time (or have short bankrolls), and could probably make more than $8 an hour in a slightly tougher, but bigger game.


But if they can beat a rake like that for 2 bets an hour, they're probably beating the game itself for more like 4 or 5 bets an hour. So if you put the same players in a bigger game, like 10-20, where the rake only made about half a bets difference, then a good player would make 4+ bets an hour.


I think theres really no theoretical upper limit to the beatability of a game, other than a basic economic law:


If a low limit game gets good enough that pros from higher limit games could move down and make more money from it, then they will, until the game isn't that good anymore.


So for example, in the case of the 10-20 game with the 2-4 players, the main thing that keeps it from getting as good as $80 an hour for a typical pro is that as soon as it gets up to $40 an hour, so many pros would pounce on it that it wouldn't be that good.

"theres really no theoretical upper limit to the beatability of a game"


What I mean is theres no upper limit to how good a game can get, as long as the players are bad enough.