[The_Bends]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't reasonably expect your edge as a heads-up player to be so great so as to overcome the rake, due to variance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Variance has nothing to do with whether your edge exceeds the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely it does. Lets say you play a game in which you are 100% to win over your less skilled opponent. You both have $100 and each game you stake 90c each and each give 10c to the house. At the end of game one you would take $1.80 (90c+90c) while the house takes 20c (10+10) in rake In this game you would break your opponent in 100 games taking $80 and leavng the house with $20.

Now say you are only 75% favourate to win. Every four games you play you win three taking back $5.40 and paying 60c in rake. In the other game your opponent wins and takes $1.80 and the house takes 20c. Since you both invested $4 each in the four games you have made a profit of $1.40 and your opponent has lost $2.20.

So in order to break your opponent now you now play him 181 times before he runs out of money [(100/2.2)*4]. Because you have to play him 81 times more the house gets $8.10 more rank from both you and your opponent meaning you lose $16.20 compared to when you had a 100% edge.

The conclusion, the few games it take to beat your opponent the more money you keep and the less that the house takes from the game. Varience increases the number of hands you must play to enforce your edge so greater varience = more hands = more rake = less profit.