When is the rake insurmountable?

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know theory/ideas regarding at what point the rake becomes the only winner in a game regardless of disparity in playing strength of the players i.e.) There is a point at which Sklansky couldn't beat a game of chimps that have been trained to hold cards and put chips in randomly. What would that be? Let's take the more reasonable example of Sklansky playing $2-4 against the usual crew of loose neophytes (Let's put the rake at $3 + $1 for a jackpot promotion fund). I doubt he can beat it. Can he beat $3-6 being raked at the same amount? $4-8? At what % of rake can he make a big bet/hour?

Maybe this has been discussed before on here. Please direct me to the forum and thread please. Also, anybody that gets all mad about my saying, "Sklansky can't beat monkeys", just change the monkey part to "you and your buddies", thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cardrooms often let short-term greed take priority over their long-term interests, but very few of them are stupid enough to spread unbeatable games. Almost any rake that exists in an actual game can be beaten if the players are bad enough. I've heard of limit seven-card stud games in Europe that have uncapped 10% rakes but that are highly profitable for the few strong players there - those games contain multiple players that would automatically call to fifth or sixth street every single hand regardless of their hands or their opponents' boards or the action.

I think a 10% uncapped rake would make most limit holdem games unbeatable for a good player against typical opposition, but a very strong player could still beat a very weak lineup. If the rake was 20% uncapped in limit holdem, I don't think Sklansky could beat people who just learned how to play.