Rake in Low Limit Hold 'Em

[Adalbert Waldenbusch]

I've been playing now quite some time Limit Hold 'Em on the internet. Especially at Paradise and now at Party (0,5/1; 1/2 and 2/4). When I add it all up I quite lost some amount of money though I follow the books on the topic and though I read this forum and asked questions here (under another handle which password I've forgotten).

I won't post any hands now nor do I think I need a lot of advice else about my playing style, 'cause I know it cannot be so bad that I loose some money consistently. I rather suspect that it's virtually impossible to win consistently at this levels because of the rake.

As an example let's see Party Poker. At the 2/4 table the average rake may be 1,5 (max 3 $). If you win 7 games in hundred, you loose about 11 $ that way. That's 2,5 Big Bets. It's more than the amount you should have won in this appr. 1,5 hours (good player 1 BB / H).

My newest example: I played 80h at Party (2/4) and I am down 400$. Wouldn't I have to pay the rake I would be up at least 100$. I think Mason and Sklansky wrote their books for the 30/60 games where the rake plays no significant role. Were they to play at 2/4 maybe even they couldn't win much.

I also got some answers on this topic here on the forum, some guys said "Play at least 5/10", what I cannot afford at the moment, others said build a bankroll from 0,5/1 and so on, because they argued that the low quality of the bad players there do more than compensate the rake problem. On the other hand last summer a guy from Party called me by telephone and asked why I stopped playing there. Even he stated, that below 5/10 the rake eats up all your profit (and I think even a bit more).

Hey guys, what do you think?!


Adalbert

Do you think to play tournaments is a better idea?

[pudley4]

I play mostly 2/4 at a couple of different sites. According to my stats, I have paid x dollars in rake. I have won approx 2x dollars (after the rake).

The average rake in my Party 2/4 games is $1/hand.

[mmanne]

I don't generally play .5/1 or 1/2 but I know that at 2/4, I make approximately $10 / hour, after the rake is taken out.

Here's the problem I see with your logic
"I won't post any hands now nor do I think I need a lot of advice else about my playing style, 'cause I know it cannot be so bad that I loose some money consistently"
Not to be too harsh, but if you are losing consistently, isn't that saying that it is so bad?

matt

[Adalbert Waldenbusch]

At least these posts show that somebody does win there. Maybe I'm just on a bad run. Did you have this too, down 100BB in 80 h? (I hope noone of an internet site here answers so positively just to convince us low limit players to go on giving them our money).

When I post some hands, what would it help. That wouldn't make the difference between loosing and winning player alone?! Perhaps talent as in chess is the main thing you need and just not everybody has such a killer instinct?! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Regards

Adalbert

[mmanne]

It's completely up to you whether to post your hands or not. But I think that most people on this forum believe that it will help your game.

You say "Perhaps talent as in chess is the main thing you need and just not everybody has such a killer instinct", but what great chess player doesn't practice games, or read or listen to others to help better his/her game? I think it would be silly to think that a great chess player just sits there on his/her talent and doesn't try to become better

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm just on a bad run. Did you have this too, down 100BB in 80 h?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everybody has some pretty extreme bad runs. (I'm in the midst of some pretty ugly results this week!) 100BB in 80 hands seems pretty extreme, but I can see where this is possible with an unusually high number of consecutive bad beats without any drags in between.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps talent as in chess is the main thing you need and just not everybody has such a killer instinct?!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but "killer" instinct comes with experience - it can be learned.

[Adalbert Waldenbusch]

Thanx for your commentary but in one point you got me wrong, I meant 100 BB down in 80 h o u r s (not Hands).

adalbert

[Dov]

As Dr. Schoonmaker pointed out in Psychology of Poker, Tight Aggressive Players (TAP) aren't born. They study and practice to get that way.

The natural way is to lose.

[umdpoker]

true. i think most are born either weak-tight or loose aggressive. i was naturally weak-tight because i am risk averse. it took me a lot of practice to get the whole aggressive thing down, but i like it. once i understood that i am actually risking more by not betting, i could throw the chips out there without the nuts.

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
I won't post any hands now nor do I think I need a lot of advice else about my playing style, 'cause I know it cannot be so bad that I loose some money consistently. I rather suspect that it's virtually impossible to win consistently at this levels because of the rake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Rake (and other considerations live) is something that makes it harder to turn a profit in low level games. It is not something that can't be overcome.

Without more details, I would say your biggest enemy is yourself. If you're not willing to admit that you might not be playing optimally most of the time, even though you are losing, then you have a bigger problem than rake.