Hollywood in KC decided to quit spreading 2/4 and changed the minimum to 3/6. That's pretty much the only limit game they have other than when some regs come in a once or twice a week and play 20/40. They used to have 2/4 action every day but then it dwindled down to just weekends.

So, somebody got the bright idea to change the minimum to 3/6, as does Ameristar, the only other place in town with a limit game. I wondered why they did that but I figured it out: they get more players at 3/6 and it's a lot easier for the pot to get to $40 so they can collect their max $4 10% rake + a buck or two for jackpot, of course. Not to mention tokes.

This math isn't working for me. They really do have some pretty good players building their stacks at 3/6 while they wait to hit the jackpot - both Hollywood and Ameristar. The guys at Ameristar are always the same old guys/gals.

I was sitting next to one very old woman (maybe 90+) about 5' tall with a walker one time. She was really sneaky. She gave a few bad beats to me and all the other old guys. And she smiled real big when she did it. Very respectable. Then she tried to get up on her walker to go to the bathroom. I was looking at her out of the corner of my eye and saw her starting to go down. I jumped up and grabbed her before she went down too far. Then one of the other women at the table said "Good catch."

I said "She hit the chair before I caught her."

"Yeah but she was barely on the edge of it and it wouldn't have stopped her."

I don't think I can compete. Guess I'm just going to be playing on line from now on. Thanks to BBB for getting me started on that. Trouble is if your address is in Missouri you have the very rare unfortunate condition of breaking the law if you gamble on line.

It takes a lot longer to lose $100 at $0.05/$0.10. The leaking is getting slower, though - thanks to you guys.

If the games are filled with the same players, you should have a better chance to win at 3/6 than at 2/4. Assuming you are better than the average player, the same rake will be a smaller proportion of each pot, leaving more left to be won. I'm assuming most 2/4 pots were at max rake already anyway; if they weren't, then it's probably not a good game.

As I said, a fair amount of time they weren't at max rake. I think that's why they bumped it up, so the house would have a better chance of getting to max rake. The games were occasionally good for me early on a Saturday night when there were some people just trying the game out. But that was not often. There are a lot of fairly good players at the lowest limit tables looking for the cheapest way to spend their time hoping to be in on a jackpot.

This idea that the lowest priced LHE tables are full of fish just doesn't pan out around here, pardon the pun. Does it really anywhere?

Yes; everywhere I have ever played, basically everyone at the lowest limit LHE table was a bad player.

If the stakes go up 50% and the rake only 20-25% you'll make a lot more money with the same player pool (if you were beating the rake)

Playing 50c, $1 online will make you a much better player than playing live 2/4 - 20/40. It'll show you how bad the low limit live players are.

FWIW aren't $0.50/$1 "regs" pretty awful as well? Just not $4/$8 level bad?

As you know, online you find different types of bad at this level. Yes, you'll have your typical "live" passives but there's always one or two aggressive players, and even many of the passives buff, plus add a maniac or two into the mix and now you have to start paying attention.

This almost never happens live until 8-16+ or so, and it's rare.

Of course, ymmv based which is the biggest game offered at the casino. But that's been by experience on average.

Yes, but the difference in opinion here isn't that there's a geographical difference but a skill difference.

When I first started playing poker, 3/6 was a really tough game for me. Everyone was, on an absolute scale, a terrible player, but so was I, so on a relative scale it seemed tough. But I fixed some leaks and got better.

When I moved up from 3/6 to 6/12, 6/12 seemed tough. Players were still bad on an absolute scale, but so was I, so on a relative scale it seemed tough. But I fixed some leaks and got better.

When I moved up from 6/12 to 15/30, 15/30 seemed tough. Players were more or less mediocre, but I was better than mediocre, maybe even "not bad" (I spent more time than I should have at 6/12). I fixed a few leaks and got better. Most importantly, when I look back at my early 6/12 days, it seems funny that I ever thought it tough.

When I moved up to 30/60, I planned ahead, and made sure I was more than marginally qualified to play. And part of that was being overly serious about my 15/30 play - I used to talk pretty regularly with 2+2er 30/60 regs about my 15/30 hands.

Being forced to move up in stakes can be really good for your game. Someday when you're crushing the 20/40 you should go back to the 3/6 tables and laugh at how you were once timid.

These "tough low limit games" will be less so now that the OP has learned that one (non pocket) pair can't improve against a set on the turn.

As callipygian says, one thing that keeps small stakes games good is that the best winners leave for bigger games. Fix a few leaks, follow the fish from your limit to a higher one, stick in the next game. It is the way of the poker world.