Rake and toke effect

[Derek in NYC]

In another thread, somebody posted that B&M low stakes games like 3/6 are almost unbeatable because of the rake and toke.

I do not see why the live rake matters. Party rakes every hand comparably to a casino, yet online games even down to the lowest level are beatable.

The only difference in cost/hand between online and B&M is the toke. Is this what drives the profitability of online vs. low stakes B&M? Or is it a fallacy that low stakes B&M is hard to beat because of the rake and toke?

The only other difference I can see between online and B&M is the hands/hour. However, while this should have an impact on hourly rate, it should not have any effect on EV/hand.

Please explain.

[asofel]

Lets say you're averaging out at 2BB/100 playing $2/$4.

To make the math smooth, lets say about 33 hands / hour, then roughly 3 hours of play for $8. If you've won a few hands and tip $1 each hand, that number's coming down. If you drink, bring it down further. Pretty soon you could be looking at a good starting point of 2BB/100 coming out to virtually nothing. Obviously you can hit far more than 2BB/100 at a weak table, but this run will be shortlived and probably countered by a bad streak at some point. So I think the rake as usual is a factor, but the toke and much fewer hands per hour, combined with the lack of multi-tabling, make it harder for low stakes at B&M's...

[Gonzoman]

All live games I've played in rake 10% of the pot up to $4 or $5. Party rakes 5% up to $3. The difference adds up quickly.

[LegoDoom]

But if the drinks are free (not counting the tips to the waitress), then you can save money if you were going to be drinking anyway [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

But if we're talking 2/4 or 3/6, I think most games are more beatable than 2bb/100.

[Derek in NYC]

So the reason you're saying LL live games are unprofitable is because of the toke.

I understand that the fewer # of hands (and lack of multitabling) means a lower hourly rate, but each hand should still be equally profitable as an online hand.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
All live games I've played in rake 10% of the pot up to $4 or $5. Party rakes 5% up to $3. The difference adds up quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, I wasn't sure about that either, but I do remember them taking a little more, and over time, it definitely does add up...

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
But if the drinks are free (not counting the tips to the waitress), then you can save money if you were going to be drinking anyway [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]
exactly!
back when i was about 16 or so, i was playing video poker in a casino in St. Maarten (didn't have the balls/knowledge to sit at a table). Waitresses kept coming over to me with drinks, huge smiles, super friendly...I was happy to be drunk and only "paying" $5 per drink! The look on my face when I later learned they were free must have been priceless...

[ QUOTE ]

But if we're talking 2/4 or 3/6, I think most games are more beatable than 2bb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. The 2/4 table i played at the Borgata the other night was just giving money away...It was hard not to laugh about it at the table...If I could sit at that table everynight...well, goodbye 9am-5pm, hello 9pm-5am... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[sfer]

Have you seen how bad the typical 3/6 player can be?

[Derek in NYC]

Oh, well I admit I almost never play live raked games. I was under the impression that the live cap was the same as the Party cap, but if that's wrong, well then my post is just stupid.

[Jonny Melon]

Whoever posted that live $3/$6 games aren't beatable is frustrated because they aren't beating them. They are extremely beatable and often feature the worst play this side of party $.50/$1. Nonetheless, B&M rakes tend to be much higher than online + tips + valet parking + fewer hands per hour +no multi-tabling means that the online play is generally more profitable.

Jon