[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem predisposed to steering your friend away from the 2-4 game, which is fine. No argument here. There are very few good reasons to play that low live, most of them will not apply to most people trying to make money at the game.

But if you tell him it's unbeatable, you are just lying to yourself and him both. What I see is that you are trying to make the math fit your views, when there is evidence that your views are incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion, but you're wrong. My friend has already convinved himself that it's not beatable. I don't have an opinion. I'd actually prefer to see some proof that it is beatable. But, I don't consider the statement, "the live small stakes games are juicy", substantial evidence. Too many people have either convinced themselves that 2/4 is either beatable, or it's not. No one's shown any proof. And no, a good 10-20 session run isn't proof. The problem with the long run in B&M is that it's pretty damn long. At only 30-35 hands/hour, it takes many, many sessions to hit 50k-100k hands. Online, we can pump out hands at 8x the rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall if it was GT&OT or Poker Essays I where Mason gave estimates of win rates at various games/stakes. His guestimate at the time was that a great 2-4 player could beat the game for 2BB/HR (maybe it was more). This was based in part on knowledge of some people's actual results. The rake has gone up a little since then, the games have probably gotten softer.

My suppositions are based on your response (or lack of) to my PM which offered adequate statistical proof.

If you still don't think it can be beaten, you will never be convinced IMHO.