Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

Or is that rate just too high?

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

You must be playing in Detroit.

I think players are a big factor in determining how beatable a game is.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

yes

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

yes its beatable, but you may have a hard time making more than $10/hr in the game unless the action is fantastic.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

The detroit games are very beatable even with the ludicrous time charge.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

that is a ridiculous game...you walk into a game where the players at the table have as much as they have won (is this a limit or no limit game) and you have to pay 12/hr...
that is ludicrous

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

It's beatable, but you won't have much fun. Windsor has the same game, absolutely brutal. You're better off playing 5/10 with the $5 rake imo.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

I doubt it.

Motor City has a 50-200 game with the same rake. Now it is definitely beatable.

J

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

I agree with Justin about 200 max games. Trump in Gary has more fish playing then in lake Michigan.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

Yes, but it's not worth beating.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

doesnt HAVE to be detroit. any game in the sf bay area, like at lucky chances, will have this structure.

rj

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

I got semi-flamed for this question many months ago including an insinuation that "you must really suck" if you can't beat such a game. I do well both online and B&M in my limited play (strictly a recreational amateur at this point) so I know I don't suck (and that I'm really not that good yet either).

My take on this is as follows:

1. Because the NL game is a slower game (more chip counting, longer deliberations) you're lucky to play 25h/hr and 20h/hr is hardly unheard of. People who bust out rebuy at the table and that takes time away from playing the next hand. Sometimes people buy in while you are on the clock (which is both rude and infuriating - get your chips at the cage please).

2. At 20h/hr you have to contribute $18/hr between blinds and hourly rate. Not that your blind $$ is lost, but in many NL games, someone will raise to $10-$15 so you're not seeing a flop for your blind too often if you hand is merely average.

3. At the low hands/hr rate, it is possible, even likely that you could go 2 hours without seeing either a playable hand or a hand that would justify getting invloved in a big pot.

4. Unless the table is a brand new table, someone will be sitting on a significant stack and will be able to bully you off drawing hands.

5. There's always a maniac or two who will be totally unreadable simply becasue he doesn't know how to play.

6. Seats change so often that establishing any sort of useful table image is harder than most people think.


7. Dealers at the baby NL games are usually the bottom of the barrell so the games are not policed very well (re angle shots, string bets, etc.).

8. More often than not, there are freinds at the same table so the possibility of collusion is a factor that must be considered.

9. At some casinos (Foxwoods for example) you can't reload to get back to $100 until you get down to $40 so if you lose one hand, the next one you want to play is likely an all-in.

10. Related to #9, post-flop play is all but non-existent in the baby NL game. You're not going to be a good player if you don't learn post-flop play and because most of us want (and need) to get better we need post-flop play.

11. And finally, far too many hands end in showdowns so you really do have to have the best hand to win the pot.

For the above reasons, I shy away from these games and stick to 5/10 or 10/20.

Don't get me wrong, I love the NL game and play NL tournaments both online and B&M. I just think that this particular game is a bad proposition for many players including me.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

These games play bigger than you think. I big bet in limit is 2 big blinds in NL. The BBs are not the same. Plus you have much bigger pots for the blinds. The rake is not that bad for these games. The 2/4 and such limit games and games in some other countries have real rake problems.

Most 1/2NL games are very soft and beatable. Now you are not going to get rich playing 1/2NL. If you can beat it significantly, it is probably best to play higher.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

I'm not sure that I buy all of the hands/hr argument, simply because so many fewer hands go to showdown compared to limit that you get more "partial" hands in to compenstate.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

Like anything, it depends on your edge. Currently, most 1/2 NL players are complete donkeys, and if you can't beat this game with the rake, you won't beat higher games anyway.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that I buy all of the hands/hr argument, simply because so many fewer hands go to showdown compared to limit that you get more "partial" hands in to compenstate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll concede one for the other ten. Either way, this game just isn't for me.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

I think the worst part of playing at Greektown is you can't buy-in short. So if you're playing 1/2 and you get short stacked you have to bust out before rebuying.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
These games play bigger than you think. I big bet in limit is 2 big blinds in NL. The BBs are not the same. Plus you have much bigger pots for the blinds. The rake is not that bad for these games. The 2/4 and such limit games and games in some other countries have real rake problems.

Most 1/2NL games are very soft and beatable. Now you are not going to get rich playing 1/2NL. If you can beat it significantly, it is probably best to play higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

6BB/hour in rake is not that bad? You're insane.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


These games play bigger than you think. I big bet in limit is 2 big blinds in NL. The BBs are not the same. Plus you have much bigger pots for the blinds. The rake is not that bad for these games. The 2/4 and such limit games and games in some other countries have real rake problems.

Most 1/2NL games are very soft and beatable. Now you are not going to get rich playing 1/2NL. If you can beat it significantly, it is probably best to play higher.



[/ QUOTE ]
6BB/hour in rake is not that bad? You're insane.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just explained that BB meaning big blinds is not the same as BB meaning big bets in limit. Have you played live no limit?

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


These games play bigger than you think. I big bet in limit is 2 big blinds in NL. The BBs are not the same. Plus you have much bigger pots for the blinds. The rake is not that bad for these games. The 2/4 and such limit games and games in some other countries have real rake problems.

Most 1/2NL games are very soft and beatable. Now you are not going to get rich playing 1/2NL. If you can beat it significantly, it is probably best to play higher.



[/ QUOTE ]
6BB/hour in rake is not that bad? You're insane.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just explained that BB meaning big blinds is not the same as BB meaning big bets in limit. Have you played live no limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

fine. SIX BIG BLINDS PER HOUR for a rake is ridiculous. That's more than a tenth of your stack you're giving up each hour just to play in a game when your stack size is crucial. Is that any clearer? I have played NL live. Do you know what rake is?

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beatable?
 

Live 1/2 NL plays about like 6/12 limit, so the rake is about the equivalent of 1 big bet per hour in limit, which is bad but not unbeatable. You notice the rake more with the time charge, but you pay about the same if it is deducted from each pot. You are going to pay about the smae in a 5/10 or 6/12 limit game.

If you don't want rake to be a significant factor, play 2/5NL or 10/20 limit or higher. Of course the competition is generally stronger at those levels.

Re: Is a $1/$2 game with $100 max and a $6/half hour session fee beata
 

There are a few posts about the foxwoods game about this you might wanna look up.