Is it possible to beat the rake in Foxwoods' 2-4 HE or O8?

[AKQJ10]

Apologies for a question that's most likely been answered before, but i don't really trust the forum's search engine to do a search like (Foxwoods and rake).

So from what i can tell, FW's lowest-limit Hold Em game (2-4) is lower than most places (usually 3-6, often with a kill). And their max rake ($4) is at the maximum of the range for most low limit games (I've heard of $3 max in some cases). So it seems valid to ask: is it even possible for a good player to beat this game for the proverbial 2BB/hr, or does the rake clobber you to the point where you're doing well to break even?

I'm playing such a low limit to build my confidence, and my plan is to move up once i've established that i can beat it consistently. (Is +300 BB or $1200 a good milestone?) However, if the rake makes it harder than normal to beat, then perhaps i should move my standards down. I'm thinking of keeping a notebook of how many pots i win and how much rake comes out of them, then figuring my results based on the lower % rake structure that would apply to 4-8 Hold Em, the next level up.

I'm also interested in the same question for 2-4 Omaha 8/b.

For reference, Foxwoods' full rake structure is as follows:
<ul type="square">[*]$1 at the flop[*]$1 at $10[*]$1 at $20[*]$1 at $40[/list]
AFAICT, the 4-8 structure looks to be exactly the same in dollar terms, which means it would cap out at 0.5 BB instead of 1.0 BB.

[Ghazban]

The play at the 4-8 level is not really any better than the 2-4 there so, if you can afford it, I'd recommend moving up ASAP as the amount of the rake is the same. I don't know if the rake at the 2-4 is beatable long term but, when its the exact same rake as the 4-8 and the play is just as bad, the 4-8 is definitely worth moving up to if you can afford it.

[AKQJ10]

Hope nobody minds if i post to bump this up -- but also to say that i'll be at Foxwoods tomorrow, and hopefully i'll get to play some 4-8 HE as well as 2-4 O8. I've played 4-8 a couple of times, really briefly, while waiting for 2-4 tables and i didn't find it too scary.

[chson]

[ QUOTE ]
Hope nobody minds if i post to bump this up -- but also to say that i'll be at Foxwoods tomorrow, and hopefully i'll get to play some 4-8 HE as well as 2-4 O8. I've played 4-8 a couple of times, really briefly, while waiting for 2-4 tables and i didn't find it too scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kept track of my 2/4 sessions at FW for exactly 40 hours and my winning rate was a little over 3 BB/hr. Therefore I'd say the rake is beatable since 40 * 30 = 1200 hands and that could be considered "medium"-run.

[AKQJ10]

Thanks for the responses. I'll be heading out in a little while, planning to play the 4-8 HE and 2-4 Omaha. I'm wearing a black "vigilantes of love" t-shirt and camo-style shorts, so come say hi if you see me -- my name's Philip.

[chesspain]

The play is so bad at 2-4 that a good player should have no problem beating the rake. In fact, I've played 2-4 at Foxwoods and in Vegas across approx. 8-10 sessions, and I don't think I ever had a losing session, while usually averaging 3-5BB per hour.

[Jeff]

I've only played there once, but the play on the part of a lot of people is just terrible. You can add more starting hands and play them carefully, should be able to beat the rake there. There are people that are calling stations like you wouldn't believe, calling bets and raises with 3 or 4 people in the hand with a weak ace that hasn't even hit a pair and such.

1 person in a game like that makes it well worth staying it.


I do, however, recommmend playing 4/8 instead of 2/4 because the rake is the same. I would have if I had the bankroll to do it.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Hope nobody minds if i post to bump this up -- but also to say that i'll be at Foxwoods tomorrow, and hopefully i'll get to play some 4-8 HE as well as 2-4 O8. I've played 4-8 a couple of times, really briefly, while waiting for 2-4 tables and i didn't find it too scary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kept track of my 2/4 sessions at FW for exactly 40 hours and my winning rate was a little over 3 BB/hr. Therefore I'd say the rake is beatable since 40 * 30 = 1200 hands and that could be considered "medium"-run.

[/ QUOTE ]


come on... 1200 hands is nothing.

not that the game can't be beaten, it probably can. but like everyone says if you can beat it, then play 4-8.

[RydenStoompala]

No.