[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for the interesting read, but that's not I was looking for. I have played some B&M and I don't play 2/4, so I'm not really worried about the rake myself. My point is that, as the rake increases in relation to the bet size, the game becomes harder and harder to beat. At some point, it's not physically possible to win money in the long run (ie. a $10 rake at a 1/2 table).

I was hoping someone could help me fill in the numbers that I'm missing to see if we could get a general estimate on the possible BB/100 (unraked) that one can win. Then from there, we can see if 2/4 is beatable at casinos. At Commerce, the rake is $4 (I think). If you win 7% of your hands, you need to win 7 BB/100 (unraked) just to breakeven, and 9 BB/100 to make it worthwhile. If the physical limit for unraked BB/100 is 5, then it's pointless for one to go play at those tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that methodology is flawed, although you may get some ballpark numbers out of it to act as a 'warning'. How the rake is taken out is important, as well as the max amount. The action at the table (tight, loose, aggressive and so on) also dictates how often max rake is taken. Obviously bigger pots are raked at a lower % than smaller pots, once max rake is reached.

I think you will find many more games are beatable than you would first suppose, but that is neither here nor there. Whether the game is worth playing in is the question that should be answered.