Reasonable win rate at $3-6??

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Remeber that you have equity in the bad beat jackpot, so money dropped to that isn't the same as money that just disappears in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]


O.K. but is that rake still absurdly high? Would you play in this game if you only had a 300 BB ($3000) roll for 5-10?

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remeber that you have equity in the bad beat jackpot, so money dropped to that isn't the same as money that just disappears in rake.

[/ QUOTE ]
O.K. but is that rake still absurdly high? Would you play in this game if you only had a 300 BB ($3000) roll for 5-10?

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I was just thinking that from an EV perspective, the jackpot doesn't hurt you. But since you care about bankroll, the jackpot is additional variance and it will make you need slightly more bankroll since it the short term it is almost always sucking money away from you which means your risk of ruin for a given bankroll will be higher. My experience with live low limit games is almost exclusively with the super-passive games where no one ever raises unless they have the nuts. In that kind of game, you can have crazily low variance. Back when I used to play the foxwoods 4/8, I think my variance was like 5 BB/hr, although admittedly I played very tight and conservative since I was a college student starting out at poker and had no bankroll. In that sort of game, I think 300 BB would be more than enough. If this is a wild, let's-cap-every-round-to-build-a-pot type game, then it's probably not enough. I don't think anyone who hasn't seen this 5/10 game and who doesn't know your play can tell you what bankroll you need, but if the game is soft enough that you can win at a good rate despite the draconian rake and if it's not too wild, it's possible that $3k could be enough.

[applej25]

How is it that the Jackpot doesnt hurt you? Unless you hit the Jackpot at some point, you will never see that money again. And most of us will never hit a bad-beat Jackpot in our lives. Seem like it hurts your roll to me.

[Steve-o]

As far as where the rake becomes less damaging.

I'll be fair and say your max rake in this game is $5.

so X 25 raked hands an hour the rake is $125/10 players $12.50 an hour. you'll need to beat this game for 2 big bets an hour to BREAK EVEN. you would need to beat the game for 3 BB/hour to win 1 BB.

if you were playing 10/20 you would only need to beat the game for about 1.75 BB/hour to win 1 BB.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
so X 25 raked hands an hour the rake is $125/10 players $12.50 an hour. you'll need to beat this game for 2 big bets an hour to BREAK EVEN/quote]
Disagree. If you are paying your fair share of the rake in a low limit game, you are playing way too loose. If we say that we are paying $10/hr, then we only need to beat the game for 1 big bet per hour (pre-rake) to break even. Everything above that is profit. When it's said that a good player wins about 1 BB/hr, that means after the rake. In a soft low limit game, I think it is very reasonable that we can be winning 2BB/hr pre-rake in this game which would make us a 1BB/hr winner in terms of actual profit.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
How is it that the Jackpot doesnt hurt you? Unless you hit the Jackpot at some point, you will never see that money again.

[/ QUOTE ]
But if you do hit it, you win a lot more than you put in. So it is not -ev. Actually, it is, taking into account taxes and tip and so forth, but my point was that it is not fair to consider each dollar down the jackpot drop as a dollar we have lost because in ev most of it comes back to us. I agree that it is bad from a variance and bankroll perspective. Other things being equal, I would much perfer to play in a non-jackpot game (unfortunately, my regular game does have a jackpot). I was just pointing out that it is not technically accurate to regard jackpot drop and rake as being equivalent.

[Steve-o]

you would have to be a lot better than a GOOD player to beat a 3/6 game with a $5 rake for 2 bb/hour.

I was answering his question on when the rake becomes less damaging, not how much he will theoritically pay. In my example I just assumed everyone plays the same (probably should have wrote that)

BUT, paying $10 an hour in rake is not 1 BB in a 3/6 game. this game is practically unbeatable and I'm guessing the rake is $5 plus the jackpot drop is another buck. so it's probably a $6 total not $5, but thats just a guess. either way this is not a profitable game.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as where the rake becomes less damaging.

I'll be fair and say your max rake in this game is $5.

so X 25 raked hands an hour the rake is $125/10 players $12.50 an hour. you'll need to beat this game for 2 big bets an hour to BREAK EVEN. you would need to beat the game for 3 BB/hour to win 1 BB.

if you were playing 10/20 you would only need to beat the game for about 1.75 BB/hour to win 1 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]


This place has automatic card shufflers so I think I'm getting more than 25 hands an hour. But this post of yours is still very disturbing.

[Steve-o]

Rake is an important aspect when choosing a game, an increase of $1 could easily turn a winner into a loser.

I hear about places with $5-7 rakes on 2/4-10/20 tables and i cringe.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Rake is an important aspect when choosing a game, an increase of $1 could easily turn a winner into a loser.

I hear about places with $5-7 rakes on 2/4-10/20 tables and i cringe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Goddamn greedheads!

These people should be strung up by their balls and left to rot in the sun....these evil rake makers. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]