The Rake Math

[IRV]

This weekend I saw one of PHil Helmuth's video's and he said that anything less than the 5/10's Limit Holdem aren't worth playing because you won't be able to beat the rake in the long term. He said something like "If I can't beat the 2/4's, what makes you think you can beat that game. If you only have $200, you will be better off playing the 5/10 game so that you don't give your profits away to the casino." (NOT Verbatim) This was shocking to me and I'm still puzzled because I've read articles from pro's (like Mike Caro) that say Low Limit games are beatable.

Who is right? Can it be proven mathematically that these games are in-fact beatable.

Any comments welcome.

IRV

[TomCollins]

Figure out your earn/hr and your avg rake/hr, and see what is bigger.

Phil is wrong, 2/4 games, unless the rake is absurd, are generally beatable, because the quality of play is so awful. However, he is correct that you are better off moving up as fast as possible.

[IRV]

[ QUOTE ]
This weekend I saw one of PHil Helmuth's video's and he said that anything less than the 5/10's Limit Holdem aren't worth playing because you won't be able to beat the rake in the long term. He said something like "If I can't beat the 2/4's, what makes you think you can beat that game. If you only have $200, you will be better off playing the 5/10 game so that you don't give your profits away to the casino." (NOT Verbatim) This was shocking to me and I'm still puzzled because I've read articles from pro's (like Mike Caro) that say Low Limit games are beatable.

Who is right? Can it be proven mathematically that these games are in-fact beatable.

Any comments welcome.

IRV

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil H. if you're reading this post, I need a backer to start me off on the 5/10 games... plz.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[SumZero]

Of course the 2/4 game can be beaten from a mathematical sense. It is also possible that it can not be beaten. How do these two work together? It depends on the opponents in the 2/4 game. Phil may well be right for the sorts of 2/4 games he's talking about. Imagine I offered you the chance to play in the following 2/4 game: 10 handed. The 9 other players raise/cap every street (no matter the cards) except the river where they raise to one less than the cap, but if the round is capped they fold no matter what cards/hands they have. Clearly the correct strategy is to play in this game and cap every round especially the river with any hand. And clearly this 2/4 game is very beatable, even with a big rake.

But it is possible that if the 9 other players instead play a very solid/good game that no one can beat the rake. I don't know. That side is harder to prove as there isn't a solved non-exploitable startegy for hold'em that I know. But assuming there is such a beast, presumably if all the 9 players played this you couldn't beat the game (no matter the level) if there is a rake.

In real life the quality of 2/4 near you is no doubt in the middle of these two extremes. It is also possible that Phil H is just not a good hold'em player in a typical 2/4 game. If his poker skills and edge typically are in reading what sane players have and exploiting fold equity and making good tournament survival decisions these skills will largely be waisted in typical 2/4 with bad players.

[BradleyT]

Most places rake 10% up to $3 (online) or $4 (B&M).

Let's use 10BB pots for our example. We'll use $1,000 in total pots won.

$1/$2 = $20 pot = $2 rake x 50 pots = $100 raked
$2/$4 = $40 pot = $3 rake x 25 pots = $75 raked
$5/$10 = $100 pot = $3 rake x 10 pots = $30 raked

For every $1000 you win in pots, that's an extra $45 going into your pocket.

So the $1/$2 player is usually paying the full 10%, the $2/$4 player is paying about 7.5% and the $5/$10 player is paying about 3%.