4-8/kill game at Oceans11, beatable?

[00Jopke00]

I have tried to figure this out by myself but I'm just not capable of coming up with answers that I feel confident in.

I simply want to know how many bets you would have to beat this game for in order for it to be a positive bet. Its live 4-8 holdem with a kill. The house drops $4 plus $1 for the jack pot.

I've seen some of you guys break this sort of thing down into numbers and I guess that's what I would like to see if any of you have the time.

How can I put a number on the percentage of the drop that comes from me? How much value, if any, does it add that you play 8-16 a fraction of the time with the same drop? And if at all beatable, how many big bets do you have to win per hour to beat this game?

[Niediam]

Small stakes are the most probitable (in terms of BB/hr) limit holdem games.

[00Jopke00]

Yea, mucho thanks...but I really hope that's not the only response I get here.

[BadBigBabar]

yes, 4/8 with 4+1 is beatable. i'm not as math oriented as some of these guys but i can state that with complete confidence, from experience.

[marrek]

I'm not great at this, but to start

assuming 30 hands/hr

the house rakes $150/hour, which is huge compared to the stakes. I've played 4-8 full kill games where the avg. buy in is around $150, so the house rakes a buy-in /hour. So, after 10 hours of play, the house rakes every cent!

this all means that you have to beat the game pretty good, in order to overcome the rake. ( for example, the same rake at a 20-40 game is almost insignificant in terms of rake vs avg. buy-in and by-ins raked/hour)

So, if you don't play a hand, you have to pay $18/hour. And if you do play a hand and win, you have to pay the rake.

So the quick answer is that you have to win + 3BB/hour after the rake to show a tiny profit ( 24-18 = 6/hour).

After that, your percentage of the rake is dependent on the # of hands you win ( not just play) per hour. So the more pots you win, the more you pay in rake ( which implies that you should play tighter)


So

(blinds$ + rake$ + $lost on losing hands)/hour < ($ won ) / hour

blinds = $18
rake = a function of the # of hands you win ( for this example assume 3 hands / hour) = $15
$lost on losing hands = say you see 3 flops and 1 turn, 1 river = $44

18 + 15 + 44 = $77

So you have to pick up $77 on the 3 hands you win just to break even for my assumptions. If you play tighter and lose less pots, this break even amount would obviously be less.

Also, as the rake works against you ( you only pay it when you win) you should play tighter, and not fight over small pots.

marrek

[fishyak]

[ QUOTE ]
I have tried to figure this out by myself but I'm just not capable of coming up with answers that I feel confident in.

How many big bets do you have to win per hour to beat this game?

[/ QUOTE ] JUST ONE, because your wins are NET of the rake.

Where do you fall on the bell curve? If there were no transaction costs (rake, tips, etc.) the average player would, over time, break even right? If the skill level of players could be plotted on a bell curve, as we added in transaction costs, the fewer number of players that would be break even or better correct?

But:

1) We cannot accurately measure the skill level of any single player, and
2) We do not know the shape of the bell curve for many reasons.

About all we can posit is that some percentage of players will be long term winners at the game and that percentage will be less than 50%. I guesstimate the percetage to be in the 10-20% zone. And I think this is true for ANY live LLHE in California today.

FYI, I have 77 hrs. of live 2/4 play in this year in LA & LV. Total NET winnings $942. That is 3.1BB/hr.

I wish people would STOP asking these "can it be beaten" questions. The answer will always be YES, if you are a top quartile player.

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]

I wish people would STOP asking these "can it be beaten" questions. The answer will always be YES, if you are a top quartile player.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think its any coincidence that the people who post threads like this always have like <10 posts.

[Frond]

Hey OO, yes that game in particular is beatable. I have played it down there on several occasions. Table selection like anywhere is important as you won't want to be on a table where there a lot of regular rocks cause the pot sizes will be on the smallish side. With that full kill 4/8 there the players get pretty timid when there is a kill on so take advantage of that if you can. The games can be good but I think that there are better 4/8 games at Haw. G and Commerce. They just have a ton more 4/8 tables going so you can find one that suits your playing style and seek out the weaker players. Commerce does not have a kill but the HG is a half kill game. You might X-post this in the B&M forum.

[One Outer]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

Here is a useful thread for you. The consensus seems to be that while these games are definitely beatable, there isn't enough money involved for it to be worth the time, i.e., no reason to play 2/4 with a $1200 roll when you can scrounge up another $600-$1000 and play 6/12.

BTW, we really need to have a sticky about winrates for high rake low limit games and the "beatableness" of them. Seeing the same question every two days is starting to get tiresome.

[00Jopke00]

Thank you Merrek, that is the sort of thing I was hoping to see and it was a big help.

[ QUOTE ]
I wish people would STOP asking these "can it be beaten" questions. The answer will always be YES, if you are a top quartile player.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm confused that this came from not only the same guy, but the same post only a few lines up that said [ QUOTE ]
If there were no transaction costs (rake, tips, etc.) the average player would, over time, break even right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a cute idea but there are "rake, tips, etc." to factor in, which is the entire reason for the question. Even if you are in the top 20% of players and have a larger win rate than the others, none of that would matter if so much money was being taken off the table that you were losing no matter what.

I almost deleted that whole last paragraph because it's already understood by everyone here but I just don't see how fishyak thinks its an unnecessary idea because if you're better, you win. Maybe I'm missing something.

[ QUOTE ]
i dont think its any coincidence that the people who post threads like this always have like <10 posts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, I thought it was a legitimate question and wouldn't have posted it otherwise...and btw, I have >10 posts.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, we really need to have a sticky about winrates for high rake low limit games and the "beatableness" of them. Seeing the same question every two days is starting to get tiresome.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree, either way, I won't be posing this question again.

Thanks, everyone for the info.