[Chris Swiedler]

I've been playing live 3/6 for about a year and keeping good stats for 4 months. Where I play, the rake is $3 every round (1 small bet), approximately $12 per hour. The game is loose and generally passive, and I play it as well as anyone else at these tables. Over the last 4 months, I've lost an average of $4.50 (1.5 SB) per hour. Compared to the rake of $12, I think I'm doing reasonably well.

The 6/12 game is also $3 per round, so it's .5 small bets instead of 1. I've played it a little; it's definitely a tighter and more aggressive game, and I would consider myself a little below average. I'm comfortable at the 6/12 tables, though I'm hesitant to play it because of the double stakes involved.

I was hoping to play 3/6 until I could start winning, and build a bankroll that way before moving to 6/12. I'm wondering, however, if it wouldn't be smarter to move to the higher game where the effect of the rake is less.

If I'm losing 1.5 SB per hour with a 4 SB/hr rake, then I'm winning about 2.5 SB from other players. If I could manage 1.5 SB (from other players) at 6/12, where the rake is 2 SB per hour, I'd be netting a loss of .5 SB ($3) compared to my current 1.5 SB ($4).

Does this logic make any sense, or am I better off playing 3/6 until I can win there? Is a 4 SB / hr rake particularly large?