IMHO the money coming back into the table is not what offsets the rake - it's the relative skill level. Also, I don't necessarily think we have to beat the game for >17BB/100 in SoJ's example because we're going to win, on average, far fewer that 1/9 of the pots.

To look at it a different way, suppose that out of a 100-hand sample we play 20 hands (possibly including the blinds). Let's say we win 8 and lose 12. To simplify the math, let's say the 8 pots we won were all between $40 and $48 so the rake was $4 plus $1BBJ and $1 tip, so the pots were between 10 and 12BB with an average rake of 3. Let's say hero contributed 3.5BB to those pots. Let's say we lost an average of 2BB per hand on the 12 hands we lost.

In that case the pots totalled between 80 and 96BB, we contributed 28BB of that, we had 24BB taken away by rake and 24BB taken away in hands we played and lost. That's a net profit of 4BB-20BB in 100 hands. Not too shabby.

Obviously I pulled these numbers out of my ass, but I don't think they're too far off from reality. At a table where 5 people put in 2 bets pre (i.e. 4 callers, a raiser, all limpers call), 3 people put in a small bet on the flop, 2 people put in a big bet on the turn and 2 people put a big bet into the pot on the river (all of those "people counts" include hero), that's 10.5BB in the pot.

I've played a bit of 3-6 at Talking Stick when my uncle visits and it plays very similar to 4-8 at which I've got a considerable number of hours and it's clear that the pots are much smaller than at 8-16. Far fewer raises pf and less multi-way. I don't think that there's enough in the average pot to beat the rake for anything close to vacation money.

---------------

I'll toss this in here for the lulz: I've told him over and over 'play big cards, just big cards' in an attempt to give him some chance of winning but, no, J-2o shows up in his UTG limp range every year.

You will win at every stake with just about any kind of rake structure if you win 40% of the hands you play.

Even AA doesn't have that kind of equity in a pot that goes off 4+ ways.

Assuming an average pot of $45 with a generous 4+1 rake w/ $1 tip, 3.5 BB invested when winning, 2 BB invested when losing:

45 - 6 = 39 per pot won, - 14 invested = 25 profit
25 x 8 = 200 profit

20% equity: -8 when losing x 32 = -256 = -$56 overall

25% equity: -8 when losing x 24 = -192 = +$8 overall

I'd venture to say that if you can beat 4/8 for any non-negligible amount of time, that you really should be seeking out a stake into 20/40.

Not everyone can be so risk unaversed to jump right to medium stakes. In fact, playing on a stake likely adds to risk aversion for many.

it's not like a person capable of beating a 4/8 game just came out of nowhere. Long time in the making.

Sure but there’s a big difference between having 40 bucks on the 1/2 online game and having 400 bucks on the live game. The difference is psychological and many would likely perform better in the former due to risk aversion.

FYP

There's plenty of low to zero risk strategy games one can excel at. It's important to realize poker is a negative sum game. If your goal is to just play and not lose a ton, that's fine, but investing any non-negligible amount of time on grinding to attain a positive win rate at 4/8 is foolish.

Plus the risk aversion argument is nonsensical. If a dude hands you $20k to play 20/40 on a payback schedule, you're literally incurring no risk. Except now you can beat the rake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except there’s the unique pressure that comes when you’re playing with someone else’s money. The thoughts of failure can creep in during a hand, which is mental energy and time spent that could be used to read the situation better if one has a clear mind.

You seem to think 20/40 is a tough game filled with professionals. I assure you, it is not.

While true, that doesn't mean it takes the same skills as playing 4/8.

Well the line of "a 20/40 game that has at least 2 or 3 fish in it" is nonsensical, as I'd wager that nearly ever 20/40 game in the country has 6-9 fish in it most of the time.

Depends on the definition. If take isn't too high, which it usually isn't in a 20/40 game, there will be a few winners, and I'd never call someone with +EV in a game to be a fish.

But as the old saying implies, if the 9th best player in the world only likes to play with the 8 guys better than him, he is a fish.

I would take that wager. It is true for CP, but not for the B or most of the LA rooms most of the time. I also just tried east coast 20 and it was soft but not 6-9 fish soft.

Cliffs - CP softest 20 game in the country.

Sorry I haven't come back to this thread for a bit. I hurt my knee at work and have been off for a bit. Haven't been able to play poker either. As far as talk of moving up stakes. I was looking at this as I built a bankroll up. The biggest issue is that it will mean switching to no limit. 3/6 and 4/8 are pretty much the only options for LHE in this area. On rare occasions you might be 5/10 go off. To move up stakes you have to move to nl. When I am able to play again I was going to hit 3/6 some more and then try 4/8. Truthfully I expect these games to be virtually identical as 4/8 is the lowest game offered in the one city, while at the other casinos 3/6 is the limit option. Only Wheeling regularly has 2/4. I figure to build up a cushion and then take a shot at the 1/2nl game in Wheeling as it has the smallest buy-in. Then go from there.

I hope your recovery is going smoothly.

What bankroll expectations have you set for yourself? If you're looking to get into NL, you might be better off thinking more in terms of "taking shots" than "managing your bankroll." It will probably take you a long, long time to "build up a cushion" at 4/8 limit if you're ultimately thinking of playing NL.

For contrast between NL and LHE BR building, I'd suggest the Clueless N00b reaches 1000 hours threads by gobbledygeek


Here's the later one, on NL.
The first one on small stakes LHE.


His advice was summed up here

He's got a ton of hours in a game by modern standards that has low rake

His summary

If your end goal is to play NL, making money in high rake 2/4 and 3/6 limit is probably the slow way to go. If you enjoy LHE and want to play that, you probably can't make money but you'll get to enjoy playing the game. imo

If you're considering a move from LHE to NL, one thing you might consider is shortstacking. The ONLY disadvantage is it's so boring you'll want to gouge out your eyeballs with a fork. The advantages are nearly limitless: Since you won't be playing many hands you can watch a lot of hands and get a really good feel for what it's like to play in the game. You can practice handreading, guessing what they have and if you're lucky enough to see a showdown finding out whether or not you were right. Depending on the minimum buyin, you can take multiple bullets with you to the casino more easily.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...05/?highlight=

Always thought the term fish applied to someone with literally had no clue on how to play the game..

4/8 is EASILY beatable! I've been doing it! but I've said this like a 100 times lol.

You are correct in that many people consider fish to consist solely of people who are too drunk to stand up or people who don't know if a flush beats a straight.

As you get better, your definition of "fish" will expand beyond the obvious newbies. People who play 40% of their hands will consider people who play 60% of their hands fish.

Most people will think of a bad player as "the" fish at the table. The best player will consider everyone else to be fish.

Try not to be a fish too often. But if you're never a fish, you're probably not trying hard enough to improve and are stunting your growth as a player.

Greetings all. I have enjoyed this thread. As a newer player myself, I have been tinkering with limit and no limit, but living in a state where online poker is not yet implemented makes it difficult to invest in NL because I totally understand my lack or experience and skill would likely end up losing quite a bit, even at 1/2 while I take my lumps and improve. So.... I have used limit 3/6 (and even 2/4/6) to gain experience. I've read the limit books including Lee Jones', Small Stakes Hold'Em with the guns on the cover, Middle Limit HoldEm Poker, a short handed limit book, and various NL cash and tournament books. I've come to the conclusion that books a great, but experience and studying select hands I've played are better.

Here are a few observations from the past year or so of playing live limit games.

1. Full tables are important, but not always easy to find. I don't have the experience to play short handed tables, and the rake is absolutely killer in these situations. You pretty much need to be loose and then people get mad and leave. Unfortunately, you end up at a tables less than full far too often. An example would be you are on the list and a new game opens, then only half of the people on the list are there, so you start with 5 players and maybe one other shows up during the first 10-30 minutes. When you finally do get a full 9 players, somebody gets up and takes 20 minutes to use the bathroom. Someone else leaves. Then you have 7. A new person may come in and then another guy goes to play the slots for a little bit, knowing that he has 45 minutes to get back before his chips are removed. Someone else will get up to smoke and/or shoot the breeze with someone, and what you end up with it a rotunda or players coming and going leading to the table just never being full. It is annoying. This especially happens during a high hand promotion, and a straight flush is up there already. People will just leave and come back at the new half hour or hour mark. It would actually be pretty funny, except you can see the money leave the table faster.

2. Collusion, sort of. I am often the youngest person sitting at the 3/6 table. As a result, a lot of the "old man coffee" regular types will stick together. For example, when I am in a hand, there are groups that will work to get me out, and then once I am out they will quickly check it down as if you say, "Ok we got his $6 in the pot, let's see who gets it." Also, there are times when certain players will flop a monster, check raise me but kindly check it down when they are in the hand with their buddy who they have been playing with for years.

3. Some of the players are actually decent. They know not to give free cards, know when to call with their strong draws, know that they can reraise in position with a draw on the flop to get a free look at the river, etc.

4. You want to be there on Friday and Saturday evenings. This is when the regulars leave and you are more likely to be at a full table with players who are totally clueless. These folks didn't come to fold, so be ready for them to hit their runner runner flush with 8d5d after calling a raise preflop and on the flop. It happens way more than I would prefer, but when you raise with a premium starting hand and in a pot for 5 callers, it will happen often. The thing is, once you have a bunch of callers preflop, it isn't a big mistake to call a small bet on the flop. Even those with inside straight draws might be getting ~11/1 odds to make the call on the flop. I have toyed around with the idea or raising on the flop with a wide range, simply because when everyone calls you are seeing increased odds on the flop with just about ANY draw and it is only one bet to continue. People will just call your PF raise with hands like AA and KK, and it is then only 1 more $3 bet into a $33-39 pot, so why not? This them means that your call with a draw on the turn is justifiable, since you aren't making a mistake with the bloated pot size.

Anyway, it is usually a fun experience as I learn and wait for online poker to start in PA. Hopefully they don't screw it up.

How are people constructing SB cold calling ranges? Or are they just calling 100% vs certain player types in the BB and opener?

I'm not sure, but I would think that it's naturally formed with (hands that are too strong to fold but not strong enough to 3 bet). The strength is determined as a function of realizable equity, as a result, the majority of coldcalling hands should be suited.