[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly think Foxwoods $2/4 is beatable. I put some relevant thoughts here:
http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Low-limit_rake (Feel free to edit.)
[/ QUOTE ]
One thing you should note. If you're beating the game for 1 BB/hr, then the game is beatable. It doesn't matter what the rake is at that point, because it's already been factored into the winrate.
The problem comes in when you try to compare online to live, because the rake structures are not comparable. The rake live is so much higher. The way I was trying to get around this was to calculate a theoretical BB/100 in an unraked game, and then factor in the rake. Your true winrate will be your unraked BB/100 - rake/100. If this number is positive, then the game is beatable. If this number is really low, like 0.5 net BB/100, then the game is beatable, but not worthwhile. If it's negative, well, you're better off playing 2/4 online until you're bankrolled to play higher stakes live.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem predisposed to steering your friend away from the 2-4 game, which is fine. No argument here. There are very few good reasons to play that low live, most of them will not apply to most people trying to make money at the game.
But if you tell him it's unbeatable, you are just lying to yourself and him both. What I see is that you are trying to make the math fit your views, when there is evidence that your views are incorrect.