Re: Rake Question
[ QUOTE ]
I guess one could also calculate in the shock factor of having others at the table see monkies flying out of my butt, but I assumed that the reader realized that my comment above referred to real world situations--which would include common, real world betting limits.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect the rake structure described would be very beatable in a reasonably fishy $40/80 game (US or AU, take your pick). As far as I know (but not first hand), $40/80 games take place in the real world and sometimes include big donors, so this scenario doesn't seem outlandish to me. The $30/60 limit game the Bike shows on its video stream looks pretty fishy, so it might be beatable at this rake.
The fact that I used an extreme illustration to make a point -- that the relative rake is what's beatable or unbeatable, not the absolute rake -- in no way implies that $1000/2000 is the smallest beatable game under this rake.
You made a generality so broad as to be wrong: "I can't see how it could be profitable to overcome a $1/hand charge in a limit game." There exist limit games high enough that such a rake could be overcome. In fairness maybe you had in mind that we were only talking about $5/10 games (so "a limit game" means as opposed to $5-10 blinds NL) but that wasn't at all clear from your OP.
|