Is live 2/4 hold 'em really -EV?

KSOT · #1 07-27-2005, 03:39 PM

I keep reading posts from long timers who say that 2/4 is a -EV waste of time, but the last 10 times I went to various casinos I made well over 1 BB/hour playing it. Yeah, I know, sample size is too small to mean anything, but I don't feel that the cards I was dealt mattered nearly as much as the horrible players I was surrounded by. That's what makes live 2/4 seem like a cakewalk to me. I'd estimate that the average live 2/4 player has the same skills as a .50/1 Party player. Obviously I realize one can't make enough from it to live on, but it certainly seems profitable to me, regardless of the high rake and tokes.

Am I way off base here?

Dacoops3 · #2 07-27-2005, 03:43 PM

I don't think you are. I think too many people haven't played 2/4 enough to know how really awful the play is. I definately think that 2/4 is +EV but variance can REALLY kick you in the ass.

CORed · #3 07-27-2005, 03:46 PM

I don't think live 2/4 is necessarily -EV. The rake is ridiculous, but the players are too. OTOH, even if you can beat it, the hourly rate is going to be in the minimum wage (or worse) range. So, it certainly makes sense to play higher, if you have the bankroll and can beat the next limit.

W. Deranged · #4 07-27-2005, 03:50 PM

KSOT,

You have to remember all of the hidden costs here:

1. Dealer tips (~$3/hr)
2. Rake (~$8-12)
3. The occassional "free" drink ($.5-1/hr)
4. Transportation, Gas, etc...

... and the important one...

5. Opportunity cost: All the money you could be making online playing $1/2 with similar bankroll and skill set, lower variance, and less overhead.

The question of whether the game is "beatable" is not really that important. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But even a veritable poker god won't be able to squeak out more than maybe $8/hr playing live, and you could be doing much better playing online.

Now, with that said, there may be many other reasons to play live 2/4:

1. You prefer to play live
2. You play with friends
3. You don't like playing online
4. You are working on live game skills with the intent of moving up in limits soon/are transitioning from online to live play
5. You are playing to relax and not primarily to make money

And so on and so forth. Rest assured, you can play live $2/4, have some fun, and break even/make a little. You obviously won't lose that much. There'll be a little variance. But, if you are serious about making money at the game and your bankroll is suited for that level of play you're only option is to play online.

steamboatin · #5 07-27-2005, 06:34 PM

It is beatable because the players are really bad. After you have played at higher stakes especially live, it is very frustrating to play $2-4 live.

Maybe this shows a flaw in my thinking in regards to poker but I can't stand to play $2-4 and that may be one of the reasons $2-4 is often bashed on this forum.

Just because I don't like $2-4, should have absolutely no bearing on what limit you play. Play the limit you can beat and that you can afford. Don't move up to quickly, it is always a mistake but don't be afraid to take a shot at a higher game if it looks soft.

Bigdaddydvo · #6 07-27-2005, 06:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is beatable because the players are really bad. After you have played at higher stakes especially live, it is very frustrating to play $2-4 live.

Maybe this shows a flaw in my thinking in regards to poker but I can't stand to play $2-4 and that may be one of the reasons $2-4 is often bashed on this forum.

Just because I don't like $2-4, should have absolutely no bearing on what limit you play. Play the limit you can beat and that you can afford. Don't move up to quickly, it is always a mistake but don't be afraid to take a shot at a higher game if it looks soft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate it because it's boring or hate it because the players are bad? I really hope it's the former...

steamboatin · #7 07-27-2005, 07:04 PM

Hate it because it is endless suckout after suckout. It is more like playing Bingo instead of poker. When everyone calls with any two regardless of raises, posistion or any consideration of the odds, the game gets reduced to whoever gets lucky enough to have the best hand wins.

I hope this doesn't come off as a crybaby post because $2-4 live is beatable, I just don't enjoy that style of play.

Bigdaddydvo · #8 07-27-2005, 07:22 PM

Come on Steam...

If you haven't figured out that the No Fold Em Hold Em games are THE most profitable...what have you been doing on the forums during the last year? Trying to find a game where people respect your raises? How did you get through SSHE and miss this point? Comparing low stakes hold em (where skills matter) to an inherently random and -EV game like Bingo is more wrong than the proverbial two boys in a hot tub.

I'd KILL to have the Caesars 10/20 have 8 to the flop and 4 to the river (though sometimes it's not far off). We all get pissed when the J3o rivers a gutshot to beat our AA, but these are THE MOST PROFITABLE PEOPLE TO PLAY AGAINST. This is so elementary, so basic, I feel like I'm wasting my time since what you wrote is generally the sentiment expressed by new posters who don't have a clue.

You have to know better than this.

m bozeman · #9 07-27-2005, 08:00 PM

Good luck surviving on your 1 BB/hour.

pudley4 · #10 07-27-2005, 08:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hate it because it is endless suckout after suckout. It is more like playing Bingo instead of poker. When everyone calls with any two regardless of raises, posistion or any consideration of the odds, the game gets reduced to whoever gets lucky enough to have the best hand wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that you win in these games because you bet and raise when you have the best of it (including your draws), and check/call/fold when you don't, right? Your opponents will lose because they won't value-bet their 2 pair on the river because a runner-runner straight just came in; they won't bet/raise the flop with a flush draw; they won't raise AKo preflop; etc.