Paradox of rake?

illunious · #1 12-02-2005, 07:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Off topic and I apologize... In LHE what must your winrate be at a certain level to be considered a shark at that level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the stakes. For limit, anything from maybe 8 BB/100 for nano limits through a fraction of a BB at very high stakes. Only after tens of thousands of hands of course.

AlexHoops · #2 12-02-2005, 03:56 PM

What about 2.5bb/100 at 3/6 full ring? I can see how somebody could easily get up to 3.5, but much higher I doubt it.

DuggleBogey · #3 12-02-2005, 04:02 PM

Fish don't favor a site BECAUSE the rake is high. The theory is that sharks will avoid a site because the rake is high, but that doesn't work either because sharks play for the fish, not dependant on the rake.

The overall conclusion is that rake has NO effect on the shark to fish ratio of a site.

#4 12-02-2005, 07:04 PM

Add some more "noise" to this idea: the rake is significantly reduced during a reload/bonus. Then the rake doesn't matter as much. A shark can then "test the waters" to see if the site is potentially profitable, otherwise he can finish the bonus and leave to only come back during another reload.

Rudbaeck · #5 12-03-2005, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What about 2.5bb/100 at 3/6 full ring? I can see how somebody could easily get up to 3.5, but much higher I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

2.5 is good, 3.5 is probably only possible if you single table.

No one in his right mind reaches 3.5BB/100 at 3/6 over enough hands to demonstrate that he actually did so. His roll will be big enough to move up long, long before that.