Is B&M low limit waste of time? - Page 4

drewjustdrew · #31 10-19-2005, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember the title of the thread but I held the same belief as you and we had a giant discussion here in the B&M forum about chip structure and its impact upon action.

I was wrong. Chip structure has a huge impact upon action. Overall and on the average a multiple chip structure game will be looser than a single chip structure. Now don't say "Well last thursday the 5-10 had eight family capped pots in a row!" because everything about poker is situational. Some days the single chip structure will be loose and the multiple chip games will be tight but overall, day in and day out there will be a significant difference in the action.

Don't just take my word for it, start watching on your own and you will see. Once you begin watching for it, it is very noticeable over period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you start watching for the opposite, you will find that is true as well. It's called confirmation bias. We see what we want to see.

Chesspain is more correct IMO. 2/5 blind structure outweighs # of chips as a factor for tightness of play.

drewjustdrew · #32 10-19-2005, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does your average 2+2er win 10% of pots? I would think that is extremely high... since you are only playing a very small portion of flops, and folding a large percentage of those when you miss the flop/draw. I would put us at winning an average of 6-7% of pots. This is for your normal 20/10 player with good aggression. So that means you only need to win around 4 BB/100 to beat the rake, and last I saw Party Poker BB/100 for $0.50/1.00 was about 3 BB/100 to beat the rake, so not much worse. (average rake around $0.50 per hand so winning at 6% of hands = rake paid of about 3.00 = 3 BB/100). B&M for a capped rake of $4/hand you win 6% of your 100 hands seen means $24 in rake = 4 BB/100. Take out the jackpot drop and you are down to 3 BB/100 and you can't assume every pot is capped in rake, average rake on winning hands is probably somewhere around 2 dollars per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I win 10% of pots, but I'm not your average 2+2er. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Also consider that a better player will find better opportunities to take down pots with rags uncontested.

#33 10-19-2005, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does your average 2+2er win 10% of pots? I would think that is extremely high... since you are only playing a very small portion of flops, and folding a large percentage of those when you miss the flop/draw. I would put us at winning an average of 6-7% of pots. This is for your normal 20/10 player with good aggression. So that means you only need to win around 4 BB/100 to beat the rake, and last I saw Party Poker BB/100 for $0.50/1.00 was about 3 BB/100 to beat the rake, so not much worse. (average rake around $0.50 per hand so winning at 6% of hands = rake paid of about 3.00 = 3 BB/100). B&M for a capped rake of $4/hand you win 6% of your 100 hands seen means $24 in rake = 4 BB/100. Take out the jackpot drop and you are down to 3 BB/100 and you can't assume every pot is capped in rake, average rake on winning hands is probably somewhere around 2 dollars per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I win 10% of pots, but I'm not your average 2+2er. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Also consider that a better player will find better opportunities to take down pots with rags uncontested.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but certainly here in Northern Claifornia it means you can do about twice in a blue moon rather than once. Certainly not often enough to boost your win-rate much. At a typical table I play at, there are maybe 2-3 players per table who I can be confident enough have noticed my TAG style and will react accordingly to make it +EV bluff a pot against.

Swax · #34 10-19-2005, 07:44 PM

Of course you can beat this game! You just need a rate of 0.4 JP/100 (jackpots per 100 hands)...duh!

Heh - in all honesty, I'm currently languishing in these limits too (3/6 and 4/8) and I think that they're definitely beatable for 4 or 5 BB/100, rake included. Seriously - even with the awful proportionate rake, I think that the errors here vs. online 1/2 more than compensate for the higher rake percentage. Especially if you have even halfway decent skill at building pots when you hit your premium hands. I've taken down 40 BB pots with flushes and boats when four to five people are staying until showdown - that NEVER happens online. I mean this is a game that people will cold call raises with ANY two suited cards. I mean, come on!

Now, here in CA, I've noticed that 2/4, 3/6, and 4/8 all take the same aggregate amount of rake (instead of proportional to the limit), so therefore the higher the limit you play the less significant the rake and the more beatable it is (the errors are no less common in 4/8 than they are at 2/4). That being said, in 2/4 you're dealing with a whole BB or more of rake - so I don't know that you can beat a game full of passive players. The most unbeatable game is the 1/2 stud game in most CA casinos - my god. Now THAT is a game in which nobody wins, for real.

And yes, the swings are tremendous at this level. I generally buy in for 20 BB ($120 at 3/6) and almost always either bust completely out or triple up in a two-three hour session - and that's with only a 20% or so VPIP.

cardcounter0 · #35 10-19-2005, 08:00 PM

Then all those silly casinos spreading $4-$8 or $6-$12, instead of $5-$10, must have rocks in their head!
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Chip structure far effects tightness of games rather than blinds. Fish like pushing large stacks around. If they are in for a buck, they are in.

cardcounter0 · #36 10-19-2005, 08:03 PM

Just see what happens when a casino changes it's chip denominations, and a 1-2 chip structure games becomes multiple chips. A formerly tight games all of a sudden becomes wing-ding loose, with the same blinds.

steamboatin · #37 10-20-2005, 12:51 AM

thank cardcounter0, to the others BMA ( New acronym, Bias My Ass)you go from a bunch of tight ass NITS chopping blinds to family pots or six to eight for two bets and buckle up it is going to be a wild ride.

You need to remember that I am one of the most stuborn assholes on the planet and the only way, I will even consider the possibilty that I might be slightly mistaken is to have absolute proof in triplicate that I am incorrect.

If you ever hear me say that I was wrong, you can guaran-F'in-tee it that I have triple checked the facts and the other person is correct before I will ever admit to being wrong.

#38 10-20-2005, 02:42 AM

I always thought that casinos spread 4/8 and 6/12 to keep white chips on the table for dealer tips.

steamboatin · #39 10-20-2005, 06:36 AM

Wow

pipster · #40 10-20-2005, 11:42 AM

Haven't played much low-limit poker in vegas have you? I played an 8 hour session of 3/6 at the MGM and I saw a pot folded without a showdown 5 times. If you are playing standard 20/10 poker, you are only seeing 3 flops in 10 at most... and you are not winning 1/3 of those against 5-6 callers. Now when you DO win the pots are nice.. but 10% is not realistic unless you are playing something like 60-70% of hands. (and then your winrate is crap because you are putting money in with the worst of it to often)