beatable?

Can you beat the rake of an ultra-loose, passive $3/$6. I've been told both yes and know by two very knowledgeable poker players.

I should rephrase my question. I am sure that if the conditions are perfect, of course you can beat the rake of a $3/$6. My question is, if you chose your $3/$6 tables at RANDOM, could a good player beat the rake for lifetime?

How much is the rake?


Against a rake that is not too high I would say a very strong player can beat it against random 3/6 tables.

Logically:


1. There are many winning players on these forums.


2. Many players start playing at low limits (with correspondingly high rakes).


3. Many winning players win before they move up.


Thus, if you look at a winning medium stakes poster, you have an example of someone who likely won in these sorts of games.


Whenever I see someone ask if a LL game can be beaten, I wonder if he would prefer to pay more absolute money in rake (time charge) against better players.


It is possible that a game might be unbeatable due to rake or other considerations. It is likely that a game would be "better" with a lower rake. However, learning to beat bad players is worth the effort. Is it possible? Almost certainly.


Doug

Yes. What is the arguement that these games couldn't be beaten?

the argument I heard was the the rake at most $3/$6 tables is relative higher then $6/12. Enough so, that beating the game on average was very difficult if not possible.


I did not agree with this for the exact reason dk posted. If it were not beatable, everybody would give up and there would be no winning $6/12 or 10/20 or whatever players. The fact that that is not true and there are winning high limit players implicitly proves that $3/$6 must be beatable.


I am positive, but have not logged quite enough hours to prove that I'm a winning player with high confidence level (I mean a statistical confidence level, not my own literal confidence). It's not money that's the issue, I just want two more months were my bankroll is still positive before I try and tackle $6/12.


cheers and thanks for all the responses

I play at a $3/6/12 game in Lake Charles with some degree of frequency and have beat it for well over 2 BB's per hour every time I've been down there for the weekend.


It's even more important to note that the rake there is probably as bad as gets anywhere in the country. $5 max with $1 jackpot draw. So basically $6 out of every pot you win.


I did some simulations with that spread and that rake on TTH and was able to beat it fairly consistently. You are going to pay a crapload of money to the house especially when you factor in tokes as well - but the key to these games is playing smart - not neccesarily ultra-tight.


I find in those loose games that the pot is rarely raised pre-flop. The number of hands that you can limp with in late position increases dramatically and you are able to see a few more flops at a bargain basement price.


However, the key here is knowing when to dump a hand and I can't recall many hands that didn't make it to a showdown. In fact, quite frequently at these games there are 3 or 4 people flipping cards at the end. So, the key is to not bluff and just play solid poker. Get money in the pot when you think you have the best of it and muck when you don't. You won't lose money pre-flop in these games from overcalling as much as you will post-flop when you are chasing a dead hand.


Clearly though, the game is beatable. I have several friends that routinely beat $3/6 raked games. If you play in Vegas the rake at many places is $3 and I think binion's even has a $2 rake at some tables.

They are, of course, beatable.


Your friends touched on a key point, however:


With the rake being so much higher relative to the stakes at $3-6, you should really try to move up as soon as possible.

If it were not beatable, everybody would give up


Most casino games are not beatable but this does not prevent millions of people from continuing to try.


Lost Wages