Lowest beatable limit?

[Dazarath]

This issue has been on my mind for awhile and I was hoping someone could give me more insight on the subject. I've seen people say that any limit is beatable in a casino, while I've seen others say that 4/8 is lowest beatable limit, but it's a pointless grind. I understand that the skill level of the players changes things, as well as the rake. I wanted to focus mostly on the rake, because my roommate believes that 2/4 and probably 3/6 are not beatable because the rake is too high in proportion to the size of the bets.

Ok, this is the way I see it. Let's say at a 2/4 game, you win about 7% of your hands on average. We'll assume a $4 rake per hand, as that's what Commerce and Bay 101 run. So to break even, you need to earn 7 BB/100 in a game where there was no rake. I've seen a screenshot of a PP 0.50/1 database where a guy was running at 5 BB/100 over 100k hands. If we made the assumption that the Commerce 2/4 game plays like the PP 0.50/1 game, and we calculated how much 5 BB/100 comes out to be without the rake, it would be possible to estimate a guess at whether or not the 2/4 tables are beatable and for how much.

I understand that too many assumptions are made in this post, but I think it's a good starting point. As poker players, we're all looking for +EV situations, and it'd be nice to know that those of us playing small stakes are not fighting a losing battle against the rake.

Check this...

Theory Thread

[Dazarath]

Thank you for the interesting read, but that's not I was looking for. I have played some B&M and I don't play 2/4, so I'm not really worried about the rake myself. My point is that, as the rake increases in relation to the bet size, the game becomes harder and harder to beat. At some point, it's not physically possible to win money in the long run (ie. a $10 rake at a 1/2 table).

I was hoping someone could help me fill in the numbers that I'm missing to see if we could get a general estimate on the possible BB/100 (unraked) that one can win. Then from there, we can see if 2/4 is beatable at casinos. At Commerce, the rake is $4 (I think). If you win 7% of your hands, you need to win 7 BB/100 (unraked) just to breakeven, and 9 BB/100 to make it worthwhile. If the physical limit for unraked BB/100 is 5, then it's pointless for one to go play at those tables.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for the interesting read, but that's not I was looking for. I have played some B&M and I don't play 2/4, so I'm not really worried about the rake myself. My point is that, as the rake increases in relation to the bet size, the game becomes harder and harder to beat. At some point, it's not physically possible to win money in the long run (ie. a $10 rake at a 1/2 table).

I was hoping someone could help me fill in the numbers that I'm missing to see if we could get a general estimate on the possible BB/100 (unraked) that one can win. Then from there, we can see if 2/4 is beatable at casinos. At Commerce, the rake is $4 (I think). If you win 7% of your hands, you need to win 7 BB/100 (unraked) just to breakeven, and 9 BB/100 to make it worthwhile. If the physical limit for unraked BB/100 is 5, then it's pointless for one to go play at those tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that methodology is flawed, although you may get some ballpark numbers out of it to act as a 'warning'. How the rake is taken out is important, as well as the max amount. The action at the table (tight, loose, aggressive and so on) also dictates how often max rake is taken. Obviously bigger pots are raked at a lower % than smaller pots, once max rake is reached.

I think you will find many more games are beatable than you would first suppose, but that is neither here nor there. Whether the game is worth playing in is the question that should be answered.

[MicroBob]

Do they rake $4 out of EVERY pot...or is that just the max rake?

Because at 2/4 it wouldn't be uncommon for some of the pots to fail to meet the max.



However, I'm betting that 6-7BB/100 in an unraked-type game probably isn't too far off from what you would have to do to beat 2/4 live in the long-run.

At 33 hands/hr this would be about 2BB/hr.

So 6BB/100 at 2/4 live would be about $8/hr IF there is no rake.

And I think this would be close to break-even with the $4 max-rake up to 10%.


33 hands might add up to $80 in total rake taken off the table in an hour ($2.44/hd).

And this would be 10 players paying $8 each approximately each hour (although the looser players are going to be contributing more to the take..and you are going to be contributing less to it).


Factor in the occasional $0.50 or $1 tip and maybe even a jackpot drop on top of that and it would appear that 7BB/100 or higher is what would be necessary to squeak out a long-term win-rate at 2/4 live.

[mosquito]

MicroBob,

Your math looks reasonable.

Of course, there were these Greek philosophers. One argued that you could not walk out of a room, since you had to first walk half the distance to the door. Then half the remaining difference. And so on such that you would never arrive at the door. The other disagreed, and walked out.

For all the theoretical considerations aside, most 2-4 live games are very beatable even at $4 max rake. The games are just that good. Still neither here nor there, but it underlines the difficulty in trying to define so narrowly one set of parameters, when you don't really know what you are applying them to. There is just no good way to accurately quantify how beatable a game is purely on theory, when the numbers you need are not quantifiable. ie how good is the player? how good is the game? and so on.....

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
Do they rake $4 out of EVERY pot...or is that just the max rake?

Because at 2/4 it wouldn't be uncommon for some of the pots to fail to meet the max.



However, I'm betting that 6-7BB/100 in an unraked-type game probably isn't too far off from what you would have to do to beat 2/4 live in the long-run.

At 33 hands/hr this would be about 2BB/hr.

So 6BB/100 at 2/4 live would be about $8/hr IF there is no rake.

And I think this would be close to break-even with the $4 max-rake up to 10%.


33 hands might add up to $80 in total rake taken off the table in an hour ($2.44/hd).

And this would be 10 players paying $8 each approximately each hour (although the looser players are going to be contributing more to the take..and you are going to be contributing less to it).


Factor in the occasional $0.50 or $1 tip and maybe even a jackpot drop on top of that and it would appear that 7BB/100 or higher is what would be necessary to squeak out a long-term win-rate at 2/4 live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you MicroBob. This is what I was looking for. As for the rake, I'm going to have to ask my roommate. I haven't played 2/4 live for a long time. I was just under the assumption that once the flop hit, the rake + jackpot was $4. Of course, if everyone folds and the SB completes, a $4 drop would leave the pot with exactly $0, so this may not be correct.

Another note, I'm not sure what you mean by the 10% max. I live in California, and I always thought that (here) they're not allowed to rake based on the size of the pot for some legal reason or other.

If you say that 7 BB/100 (unraked) is necessary to beat the Commerce 2/4 game, then the question about what's the possible BB/100 for a decent-good small stakes player?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
So to break even, you need to earn 7 BB/100 in a game where there was no rake.

[/ QUOTE ]


huh?

if there was no rake then wouldn't you need 0.01BB/100 to break-even?

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
if there was no rake then wouldn't you need 0.01BB/100 to break-even?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I should rephrase that. To breakeven at a 2/4 game with a $4 rake, you'd need to have a winrate equivalent to 7 BB/100 in an unraked version of the game.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if there was no rake then wouldn't you need 0.01BB/100 to break-even?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I should rephrase that. To breakeven at a 2/4 game with a $4 rake, you'd need to have a winrate equivalent to 7 BB/100 in an unraked version of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you can't get an answer to this without an average pot size in the equation.