|
|
#11
03-12-2007, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Can a tough $1/$2 Limit Game ($3 Rake) be beaten in the long run?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well, if we assume 30 hands/hour, that would imply that 45BB are raked out of the table per hour, which would require the 2 suckers to donate over 20BB/hour each. That's not usually going to happen unless they're colosally bad. [/ QUOTE ] For a game with an average pot size of 5 bets (which is typical given the description he provided), the average rake per hand would be 0.25 bets with a 5% max 3 rake structure. [/ QUOTE ] He said $3 rake, I assumed $3 rake. If in fact the rake is much lower, then sure, the situation becomes better. Seems like that would be obvious. 
|
|
#12
03-12-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can a tough $1/$2 Limit Game ($3 Rake) be beaten in the long run?
how about live? unlike online its usually 4-8 to a flop even with raises. $5 rake per hand is the norm and ive been doing quite well for the couple hours a night i play waiting for my girl to get off work. Will i be dead in the long run?
|
|
#14
03-14-2007, 08:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Can a tough $1/$2 Limit Game ($3 Rake) be beaten in the long run?
Surely we should look for games with low rake caps. I benefitted considerably from a capped rake of 1bb!
My concerns have been popularity of short-handed & removal of rake cap, plus tighter play at full ring, as opposed to the glory days of "No Fold'em HE". My edge would seem to be reduced by murkier situations and need to play more blinds, and reduced pay offs on speculative hands.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
