All of that and no cliffs.

Math is your friend.

I have a mental block w/ regard to two things: Math beyond geometry and physical puzzles. Take that math and stick it!, imo. So, tell me, does all of that math say that a good player can earn ~$10/hr as I posted?

btw, look at what it took to get a lurker all of the way up to 3 posts (and one of them a mistaken double post, at that) in twelve years!

You're not obliged to read what I post and this isn't a dick measuring contest about who can claim the highest 6/12 winrate.

I read everything that you post w/ great interest, my friend, bec why? You're smart that's why! But, come on, have some consideration for those of us whose eyes glaze over when confronted w/ that math stuff and provide cliffs!

Ima throw in some extra '!!!!!!!!!!!!!',s for good measure!

Pretty much, yes.

IIRC, there have been a few people in this game that have claimed that this game was beatable for 2.5 or 3+ BB/HR over big samples.

Anywhere other than Vegas, this rake is pretty reasonable. 6/12 isn't big enough to have real pros. It is possible that this could be a super soft game. Still, my advice to anyone who wants to make money would be to aggressively shot take to 20/40 (let's assume that $ from a job can get you back in action if busto). Once you have a fat roll at 6/12, look for a soft 20/40 lineup. Take a shot. A few lucky days and you're suddenly a 20/40 reg.

I don't do math, I'm a feel player and I'd set the over/under on what I could win at the Oaks 6/12 to be $4/hr.

Cliffs: Captain R thinks he can beat the Oaks 6/12 for $4/hr. Whether that's good or bad is debatable.

I'll take the over.

I'd have taken the over in 2009. But I suspect El Capitan would have set the line higher back then.

I would have thought 1.0-1.5 was possible. But rake has gone up by a pip plus the BBJ has gone from house funded (-$0.25) to a BBJ drop (+$0.50-$0.75). On top of that it's hard to imagine games have not gotten harder.

My game hasn't gotten harder.

As of now, the LHE goes 3-6, 6-12, 20-40 and 40-80. The stopped spreading a 15-30 and 30-60 a short while ago.

I'm always so envious of you all and the games available to you. My LHE choices are 3/6 and 20/40 with Halfkill.

SF Bay Area has a really great LHE ecosystem.

I was inspired way back when by Jesse, who pointed out that the SFBA has a full ladder "for those who wish to climb it." It's mostly intact AFAIK.

3/6: CG, Oaks, LC(?), AJs, Palace
4/8: Bay, Palace
6/12: CG, Oaks, AJs
8/16: Bay
15/30: CG
20/40: Oaks, AJs, Bay
30/60: AJs(?)
40/80: Oaks, Bay
75/150: M8trix
80/160: Bay

Corrections welcome.

M8trix 75 is dead.

In days of yore, $10/$20 FLH at the Taj in AC was a $5 per player per 30 minute dealer 'down' (rotation in the 'box') time charge; $20/$40 was $7 and $40/$80 was $8 and these were all 10-handed games - don't ask me to explain the logic of the progression because I don't know.

But over at Foxwoods, especially back when they played 'upstairs', $10/$20 AND $20/$40 both had a $4 max rake ($2 after the Flop; $1 more when the pot grew to more than $40; the last $1 at >$80).

Obviously, a timed game is preferred, especially if someone was putting up a 'time bank'. But even with a $4 rake at $10/$20, it was very possible to beat the game for ~1.5 Big Bets per hour... and if you were shrewd and lucky enough, you often got the first hour of a 'new' game free of any rake charge.

[I've read that some people get confused by the 'BB/hr' shorthand as the 'BB' is misconstrued for 'Big Blind' which is equal to a 'Small Bet' in most FLH games - not be confused with the 'SB' small blind shorthand...but I digress.]

Anyway, the (same) $4 max-rake effect was even further minimized at $20/$40. All of this being a long, drawn-out way to say that when the max rake is less than a quarter of a Big Bet, the possibility of 'beating' the game improves greatly. As the fractional size of the max rake in relation to a Big Bet increases, 'beating' the game becomes less and less likely.

Without getting into the longer, esoteric 'math', one-half or 50% is kinda like the inverse/reverse Mendoza line for poker (I hope that's not too much of an 'inside baseball' reference). Anything more or 'beyond' this 'line' and the idea of 'beating the game' becomes just about laughable...again, I'll disregard the [additional] effect of dealer tokes - see my earlier post.

At a 5+1 rake+PSJ (Promotional Side Jackpots) structure for the Oaks $6/$12, you're right on the fence. I'm fairly convinced that 'honest' reporting for larger sample sizes would have results converging towards my earlier supposition of $6-$8/hr and that's being both generous and optimistic regarding the player's skill and consistent errorless or near error-free performance(s).

Good Luck and Good Hunting!

For sure, I would have set the line higher 10 years ago. Mainly because the drop was $2-3 lower, but games are definitely tougher now than they were then. I remember the third time I played poker (2-4), some guy announced to the table that he would bet/raise every time the action got to him. He kept his word and blew through 3 racks in about an orbit and a half. That's the day I knew poker was profitable...

I think if you're going to do this type of math on a poker forum you should explain you should clarify your notation for forum members who are not mathematicians, probabilists, etc. [I am a mathematician.]

Well im going to try to remain optimistic that the game can be beaten for more than $4 an hour, and closer to $10 or $15.

While the games might be tougher than they were 9 years ago, they are not tough. Most tables will have a couple huge fish, maybe 4 or 5 standard bad players (too loose, too passive, but not clueless), and then a couple "solid" players (really just means they play tight, but still make clear mistakes).

Also worth noting. I believe that since the $1 jackpot drop is "player funded", the expectation is that you will get that money back over time. Oaks has a pretty good jackpot system. They have a small and big jackpot, and during most of the day they have a $100 high hand every 30 minutes. There is usually around 15 or so tables going. Ive already hit that a couple times.

My win rate since I started playing again is unsustainably high, but still encouraging.

Can anyone comment on the CA Grand 15-30? I always hear that its wild and crazy. How many tables go weekday afternoons / evenings?

youre asking too much from a non math/stats guy

I think the consensus was that $4/$8 with $3 rake is unbeatable unless its kill, where it might become slightly beatable.

So I would say with $3 rake (+1 tip) and enough play to recoup your share of any jackpot drop, $6/$12 should be decently beatable by an expert.

I know not all games are created equal i.e. the talent pool varies by casino/region etc. but this seems overly pessimistic. I have 2000 hours at 3/6 that rakes 4+1+1. ($4 for rake, $1 for BBJ/promotions and $1 for a tip) and I consider myself beating that game for a reasonable amount given its size. The BBJ drop in theory is neutral EV as that money is returned to players and I consider money I've won out of that as part of my earn.

Now I know 2000 hours is not a ton of sample size given the speed of live poker and I could just be on a heater but I'd love to have a 4/8 game with only a $3 rake.

Never have understood the whole.."its not beatable" thing with 4/8. People play horrible at 4/8. Some people, literally, might as well turn their cards face up! 4/8 is beatable without the kill and a $6 dollar drop. Throw in the kill and OF COURSE ITS BEATABLE. Just remember its not a 20/40 game...blinds are not worth tryin to steal. In fact, you should avoid playing HU as much as possible, etc..etc...

Until you get to our $5 rake + $2 BBJP drop in Colorado, so that $7 is dropped when the pot hits $50. Also, people tip more than $1 here.

Otherwise agree with you guys.
That's glory days of Las Vegas low rake 4/8, and people crushed that game. OK, crushed might be extreme. $3 rake can be beaten and has been by many. 5, 6, & 7? At some point the whole "small stakes can't..." comes into play.

The question of "worth it" in a small stakes game is confusing. Go see Avengers IW next week and you're like $15 with seat charge for ~3 hours. You have a decent chance to do better than that playing small stakes. Decent hourly wage? Who expects that from a small stakes game? To me, worth it is about enjoying playing cards and not being so over-raked that you can't help but lose.

As long as you're not better off joining HammerinHank playing green chip craps, you'll be fine.

One Oaks player saved money by playing 30/60, because the alternative was to lose even more at the table games.