[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is a gross conflict of interest in this thread.
[ QUOTE ]
alright. let me take a stab at this math as I understand it.

let the game be beatable at a winrate of x, where x = # of big bets/hour.

since the rake is capped at ~$7/pot (is this 10%?), let's assume an average rake of $5 per pot/no flop no drop.
assuming a dealing rate of 35 hands/hour, that's $175 coming out of circulation every hour out of $1750 total that's exchanging hands every hour.


although you can't calculate the true rake you are paying without your pots won/pots lost ratio, i highly doubt this game can be beaten; if it can, it's probably at 10bb/hour or more.

by all means, if there's someone out there with more math tricks, please correct me.

[/ QUOTE ]
the assumed numbers Furyion21 uses are on the conservative side.

[/ QUOTE ]
RR does this conservative math sound correct to you or not.please give reasons for your point of view.you have said and reiterated the poitnt that "these games are easily beatable". you have provided exactly zero evidence for your point of view.other than something that read like"um...im a mod and a gilpen floor who has played and won 5 times and know this to bet true...take my word for it.my intelect combined with my sample size are profound factual evidence BSBSBSBSBSProGilpenThisProGilpenThat..........."

[/ QUOTE ]

The biggest reason there are very few people beating small games is generally people that can beat small games move to larger games. Are you saying no small games can be beaten? There are games that have larger rakes than this that are smaller and are structured in a a way that rewards looser play that can be beaten. If a game is smaller with a higher rake and can be beaten there would have to be something very odd going on in Colorado to makes those games unbeatable (variance only increases the bankroll requirement, it doesn't decrease the EV of a +EV solution). And I never said it was easy to beat the games; I said it was clear they are beatable. The arugment that small games can't be beaten is not a new one, there is no need to disprove it every time a new person discovers 2+2. One thing that could bolster your argument (but appears to be false) is if you made the argument that there are better players in Colorado because they don't have a game to move up to.

Since you like throwing some math out there. You have seen really bad play there. I will take your assumption that $5/hand comes off the table. If on average one person puts in a $5 bet with no chance of winning that rake shouldn't be hard to overcome. Do you think in these games people ever put dead money in the pot or do all the players have roughly equal equity in the money they put in? Ihave noticed over the years there are roughly three types of people that play small games, those that lose and don't care, those that win and take the money, those that try to win and come to the conclusion that nobody can win since they can't.