Is it possible to beat 25NL?

[Bluegrassplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm just used to a 4 dollar max rake, and one that never exceeds 10%. I am curious as to how people are possibly beating 20%.

[/ QUOTE ]

.05 out of every dollar is a 5% rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha that is true. I was basing this off of 10-20% which is what I heard was the rake on most sites. But yeah, you are right, pokerstars is only 5%, which is not all that bad.

That graph does look promising, thanks for posting it.

[ryanj247]

[ QUOTE ]
Yo, I just played 33K of 25NL this month for "confidence."

Here's my graph from those 6 days:


I'm 100% confident I could beat it for at least 6PTBB/100 over long term (150K+ hands), 12 tabling, and am willing to prop bet if you are serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

everyone posts 30-40k runs when they talk about crushing these games. it's just not easy to sustain.

certainly, there are players capable of maintaining very high winrates for 100,200,300k+ hands. but not many.

i don't have any meaningful amount of $ to wager. i mean, you want to play 100k hands for a $200 bet? lol. but i wish i could prop bet it, because people vastly overestimate the winrates that are sustainable in these games.

[mookboi]

$800 & you got a deal, I play another 100K hands.

[ryanj247]

i don't want to bet $800, but i do find it surprising that you would want to bet on 6ptbb/100+ when you only ran at 4ptbb/100 for 33k. did you run bad for that stretch or something?

[gbporkpie]

Bonuses and rakeback deals are such a huge part of your profits in micros, even if you're crushing the competition.

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm reading this right, the rake is 5 cents per dollar in the pot on Pokerstars.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just keep getting these responses everywhere I post: "LOLZ U MUST SUCK."

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am curious as to how people are possibly beating 20%.

[/ QUOTE ]

The third quote is the answer to the second one and the first one is standard.

Yes, $25NL is perfectly beatable even with the rake. If you don't like FPPs, then go somewhere where you get most of you rake paid back to you. And, yes, I said 'most'. The answers lie on this site. Click and you shall find.

Onaflag.........

[Pokey]

[ QUOTE ]

everyone posts 30-40k runs when they talk about crushing these games. it's just not easy to sustain.

certainly, there are players capable of maintaining very high winrates for 100,200,300k+ hands. but not many.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would disagree with these statements. Personally, I think there are many, Many, MANY players capable of beating $25NL for 6+ PTBB/100, and probably plenty who could beat it for 10+ PTBB/100. The trick is that they don't PLAY $25NL anymore.

You don't see many graphs of players with a 300k hand sample of solid winning poker at $25NL because a solidly winning player won't STAY at $25NL for long enough to play 300k hands. They'll move up to higher stakes where they can win fewer PTBB/100 but more $$$/100. If you're capable of beating $25NL for a whopping 12 PTBB/100 but you could also beat $200NL for a measly 2 PTBB/100, you make more cash in the long run beating the $200NL tables. People understand this, and as their bankroll, skills, and experience allow they move up to higher stakes rather than grind out a modest sum slaughtering the $25NL tables.

If you take any solidly winning $100NL player or better, they should be able to absolutely SHRED the $25NL tables -- the average player is much worse, the tables are way too loose, they tables are way too passive, the donks go way too far with way too crappy hands, and the sustainable winrates are going to be astronomical.