Is the Rake Beatable?

[talking toaster]

... without being a nit?

I'm sure you've all seen this question before, but can a reasonably live 3/6 game (one with about 1 money-flinger and 3 or 4 other fish) be beaten?

Looking at my last 2 sessions, I lost about $120, but would have been up about $180 if it weren't for rake and tips. I estimated winning an average of 4 pots an hour, with $4 rake and jackpot plus $1 tip out of each one for 15 hours. Other sessions in the past had similar results.

Perhaps the optimal strategy is to be like one of those rocks who plays one hand every 2 hours and always has at least pocket queens. I'm pretty sure that's what a nit is, and don't want to be one.

Once I improve my game a bit more, I'm sure I can make some money, but does anyone think it's possible for even the most skilled player to make more than a few bucks an hour at 3/6, and anyone else to break even?

[Niediam]

Live 3/6 is about as profitable (in terms are BB/hr) as limit hold'em games get.

Yes the rake sucks.

[BigBadBabar]

[x] niediam didn't really respond to the post [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

i think it's possible to eke out (overcoming the rake i mean) a win if you're a skilled player. i actually think, assuming you can build a table image, that smart lag is more profitable live. this assumes people can fold obviously and pay you off.

[BigBadBabar]

but no you can't really get rich off 3/6.

[jjshabado]

What do you mean by "a few bucks an hour"? Over ~300 hours of 3/6 I'm at a winrate of 1BB/hour. Thats not a large sample, but I feel its fairly accurate given the abilities of my opponents and of my abilities. I definitely believe you can overcome the rake for this much, and possibly more.

The other day I ran through the standard deviation calculations in The Gambling Theory Book (can't remember the actual title right now) and I had a standard deviation of 55$/hour. So you can't really tell much about profitability looking at only 15 hours of play.

I don't think you need to be a nit. I'm not sure what Babar means about "smart lag" but I think I agree. I think you should actually open up your starting hands a bit and then really push situations where you have an equity edge. Its not about bluffing just realizing that there are going to be lots of post-flop situations where you're opponents will screw up and you won't.

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
[x] niediam didn't really respond to the post [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

i think it's possible to eke out (overcoming the rake i mean) a win if you're a skilled player. i actually think, assuming you can build a table image, that smart lag is more profitable live. this assumes people can fold obviously and pay you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh? You have confused me. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Anyhow, more specifically I think a good player can probably make as much as $10-12/hr in a traditional loose passive 3/6 game.

[talking toaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[x]
i think it's possible to eke out (overcoming the rake i mean) a win if you're a skilled player. i actually think, assuming you can build a table image, that smart lag is more profitable live. this assumes people can fold obviously and pay you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only make one of those three assumptions - that they pay me off.


Also, jjshabado do you play online or B&M? I'm talking about the rakes and tips that you have to give in a casino. If you're online, you'd have $2 more in each pot and twice as many hands an hour, though you might have to sacrifice some of the opponent quality.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[x]
i think it's possible to eke out (overcoming the rake i mean) a win if you're a skilled player. i actually think, assuming you can build a table image, that smart lag is more profitable live. this assumes people can fold obviously and pay you off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only make one of those three assumptions - that they pay me off.


Also, jjshabado do you play online or B&M? I'm talking about the rakes and tips that you have to give in a casino. If you're online, you'd have $2 more in each pot and twice as many hands an hour, though you might have to sacrifice some of the opponent quality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play live and the numbers I posted are from live play. I rarely play online. I'm very likely a losing player at online limits I find meaningful (1/2 limit) so I generally only play the occasional omaha game or sit 'n' go.

[MaxRaises]

Limit Hold'em is best played online. You get lots more hands in every hour, don't have to tip, no jackpot drop, and the rake is usually smaller.

Yes, the players at the casino are FAR worse than online players (usually), but the other qualities of online play are redeeming [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] .

I only venture up to the casino to play 4/8 limit on special promotional days (such as "High Hand," "Aces Cracked," and "Splash Pot" days).

I win on average 10-20 BBs over the course of 4-6 hours of playing at my local casino. My style is super TAG - I rarely play hands, but when I do it's very aggressive.

Playing loose at a live casino is absolutely suicidal! If you want to consistently win money over a long period of time, play your form of a TAG style. The rake, BBJ drop, and tips will absolutely eat up your profits if you win lots of pots.

I used to play LAG, but trust me, you shouldn't.




~ Max

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the optimal strategy is to be like one of those rocks who plays one hand every 2 hours and always has at least pocket queens. I'm pretty sure that's what a nit is, and don't want to be one.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the optimal strategy.

If I had to guess, I'd say that your leaks include never folding in the blinds, and always playing any two broadway and suited connectors and one-gappers pre-flop unless perhaps it is three bets cold or more to you. You might have a problem with not changing your hand selection based on position, the number of people in, and whether or not there is a raise.