I agree!

The quality of limit players is the worst I've seen since I first got into poker in the early 00s.

Nearly everyone is a nitty calling station now. It's the weirdest thing. It's like the poker boom and its spike in player ability never happened.

I rarely see a LAG. There is no such thing as a TAG anymore. Calling AA pre flop and check calling it to showdown is the go to move.

If you can't beat the rake in these games, you don't know what you're doing. 4+ to the pot is standard, and no amount of raises will get anyone to fold once they have money in.

The fish do bluff at big pots now. They won't bet AA for fear of two pair or trips, but they will take a completely random stab at the river. Other than that, they only start betting with 2 pair and only raise with nuts.

The faster you felt them, the more likely they are to buy in for more. I don't know how conditions could be better.

I agree!

I'm seeing a lot more formerly TAG players just check/call down top top etc.

It seems like the semi bluff is a significantly less effective tool these day's since no one folds. I'm sure it still has it's place but I'd have to think dialing it back a bit is probably the right play these day's.

Update!!!

I have still been playing, went on a bit of a downturn, lost a bit in a rough run at 4-8. Didnt go broke, but decided to lay off for a few weeks. Bankroll was down to about $300. Came back ran meh, not winning much but not losing. Booked a couple small wins that did help boost confidence again. Starting to run better, Tonight had a very good night, bought in for 60 cashed out $195. Hit the hourly hand promo, for $400 more. Total for the night $530 to the good. Total bank roll is now up to $1190. Feeling pretty good about that. This isnt a brag post, but I am a happy camper so I am indulging a little bit. I am sure most of you can relate.

Analysis: Is low stakes 2-4 to 4-8 beatable long term? I still dont have an answer to that. I think yes, but not to a significant amount of money. Can you use it to build a bankroll? I think yes, I think it will take a while, I also think you have to figure that promotions will be a part of this. Promos seems to be what fuels the games. At least in my area, the only time the limit poker games run is when some kind of promo is running. It would seem mostly that the bulk of the regular players are older, retired , ect. Poker to them seems to have become pretty much like a slot machine. The promo is the jackpot, playing and winning pots and passing money back and forth are the small wins that keep you going. Of note as far as the beatability of these games. I am thinking that it is only possible if you have 1 maybe 2 maybe, decent winning players per table. The rake is just to much to allow much more.

I am not saying that you are playing strictly for the promo prizes, though I think that is where your larger wins will come from. I think regular play will keep you ahead of the rake and making small wins. I am also coming to the conclusion that limit poker is dying, much like stud. The age of players at the limit tables is pretty high. Most the younger crowd wants to play NL, thats what they see on TV, and they cant really seem to relate to the mindset of Limit poker.

I am still somewhat more passive playing drawing hands even bigger premiums like AK AQ, ect. I dont tend to raise them very often preflop. I realize I am missing some value here, but I have noticed my variance has dropped considerably. Some of that is due to my poker bankroll being small, and my not wanting to lose it and have to save up and start again. For now, I think it is a fair compromise. I am going to be moving more over to NL eventually, but will probably bounce back and forth between the games. I realize that when playing NL I will have to play differently than how I play in limit games.

How much "value" is there in a lower variance?

Let's say it's four limpers and the small blind and you have AK in the big blind. You can reduce your variance at the cost of EV by checking. But here's the question: How much money do you think you're leaving on the table by checking? In other words, how expensive is it to choose to reduce your variance?

I know you are trying to build your bankroll, but I would suggest trying to detach from the outcome. Limit your expectations both for how your session goes monetarily and how each hand goes individually. Focus only on making good decisions. Focus on gathering information on your opponents and how you can use that information against them. Don't be afraid to make mistakes. Every mistake you make is fantastic because it gives you an opportunity to learn. If making a play feels right then do it. Maybe it was wrong, maybe not. Either way you will benefit. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes..."Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go" -T.S. Eliot

If you are not worried about the results then you will be more likely to take the appropriate action in a hand like raising AK. Trust that by doing the right thing it will pay off. Learn to accept that variance is a part of this game.

So 1/3 of your current BR is a single promo payout? If they're common and fairly random, you could consider that rakeback. I'm concerned about drawing conclusions about beatability of a game in a small sample with so much of your total roll in a single event.

Still, avoiding variance as a big favorite (as Aaron explained) seems strange in a game where one of the biggest components is bonus payout rake. You've accepted the bonus side of things as standard, your WR would improve if you accepted the poker side as well.

This is normal. Games have to be high stakes to have more than 1 or 2 consistent long-term winners, without some very special losers. Given the rake in small stakes, the house is always a crushing winner. Others? Depends.
You lack the sample size to know this well. The issue is that lowering variance while lowering your win rate is pretty likely to increase your risk of ruin. Your profit in poker doesn't come from getting good hands, because everyone at the table does that. Your profit comes from making more money from your good hands than they do. (Also from losing less from your bad ones, usually by folding ones they play.) "Reducing variance" by not raising premium hands is what every tight old man does in these stakes. They don't win. So emulating losers? There are technical arguments to be made about less premium hands and less premium situations, but failing to press big edges means you are giving up your edge as a winning player.