what's the break even price of being a LAG?

[elmitchbo]

i admit, i want to be a LAG. i'm fascinated by the negranu, hansen, farha type of play. i want to see lots of flops and make it work. it seems like the ideal style, if you have the ability to pull it off.

what i've been contemplating today is a 'break even price' for that style of play. i think vpip might not really be the best measure of LAG style. i think something like avg. big blind paid relative to big blinds won would be better. i'm having a hard time getting my thoughts together on this... i'm not really sure how to phrase the question. bare with me.

if you want to play a LAG style you're going to raise alot of hands and also limp more often to see a flop.

let's say we raise:
all pairs 99 and up
any 2 broadway cards
and A8s and up

and we call with:
all other pairs
all other suited Aces
all suited connectors and gappers
K9s or QTs

let's add a few more stipulations. we don't cold call raises without a real hand. we're mostly looking to see flops cheaply, and be aggressive with lots of hands in position.

at that rate what percentage of hands do you need to win to come out ahead? it seems to me like our avg. price paid between raising 4xBB and limping would be around 2-2.5 BB per hand. so if the avg. pot size is 20-25 BB we only need to win 10% of the hands we play.(4xBB raise with an avg. of 1.5 callers and a half pot bet on the flop and a call would be 20+ BB) playing a good LAG game should make winning 10% of teh hands pretty easy.

the problem is that i have no real basis for those numbers. can anyone come up with an actual break even price based on more solid numbers? is a break even point a relevant number in poker? when i look at a business(bar or restaurant) the first thing i want to know is the break even point, which is just a calculation of fixed costs, variable costs, and margins. obviously, keeping fixed costs down and margins high makes for a lower break even point, and higher potential for profit.

is there any benefit to keeping 'costs' down at the poker table in an attempt to lower your break even? it seems like a line of thinking that might be beneficial, but i'm not sure i'm doing a very good job of explaining myself.

if this appears to be a pointless ramble say so. any thoughts are welcome.