[Andy B]

Larry, I've read the article. It does not say that winning on-line is any more or less difficult than winning in a casino environment; it merely outlines the differences. I really don't see any reason why one should be inherently easier than the other. If "reading" people is a huge part of your game, then on-line is certainly not for you. I can't read people, because about 3% of my opponents ever do anything that makes sense to me anyway. I happen to enjoy the social interaction of live games, and my wife won't let me have the credit cards, so I play live only.

Anyway, if a $2/4 game with a $.50 ante and a $1 bring-in is beatable in spite of a $4.50 rake and a $1 jackpot drop, then I would submit that a $1/2 game with a $.25 ante and a $.50 bring-in with only a $1 rake and no jackpot drop must be beatable other considerations being reasonably equal. I have no idea how the $1/2 players on Paradise compare to the $2/4 players at Canterbury Park, and I'm not particularly interested in doing any field research, but I'm guessing that there aren't any Chip Reeses floating around Paradise's micro-limit tables. If you can offer some compelling reason why his on-line game would be unbeatable, I might change my position, but I don't think that such a reason exists. I will continue to tell people that the ante or rake alone will not make a game unbeatable. They are factors in the beatability of any game, to be sure, but the most important factor is the difference in ability between you and your opponents. If you are much better than your opponents, you can beat a 10% rake. If you're not, you can't. Simple as that.