I’ve heard wildly contrasting opinions about this, and I’m interested in what 2+2ers would say about it.

Commerce's 1/2 with the $40 cap is likely not beatable long term, if they still have that game.

As a general rule, I'd assume that these games are beatable when either:
1. There are at least 2 players on the table with 100bb+ stacks.
2. The competition is particularly loose/spewy (Saturday night at 11pm, as opposed to Tuesday morning at 6am).
3. The rake is at most 5%.

If either of those 3 things is true, then I think it's beatable.

If it's a $50 max 1/2 game with high rake, no deep stacks and tight-passive competition, then you could probably breakeven, maybe make $5/hr at best, but that's about it. It's impossible to crush a game like this for a $10/hr+ win rate, meaning it will never be worth your time.

I often play the Commerce $40 buy in. (Bust and you can buy in $60).

I was just thinking about this on the way home from my last session.

Let's say that you just want to play a relatively stress-free session, maybe seven hours, and you don't mind extreme "variance" in the skill level, mood, sobriety and "highness" of people who will play at your table.

The rake in the "forty" for any pot that gets to the flop is at least $3 regular rake and $0.50 for the jackpots. Another $0.50 is taken on the turn. No matter how big or small the pot. And let's say, just to keep the numbers easy, that we are going to get 25 hands an hour (sometimes that's low) and the rake is always going to be $4 per hand. This is an assumption that is just an estimate. For example, when everyone folds they still drop $0.50 and $0.50. But then we get more hands.

Seven hours, 25 hands an hour, and $4 per hand. That's $700 down the hole. That's about 18 buy-ins, less if the players rebuy $60, but then some rebuy $20, but still it is 18 buyins down the hole.

If you want to be one of the winning players you have to win in the face of that.

Can you "crush" for 10 big blinds an hour when 350 big blinds are going down the hole in seven hours?

Only one way to find out.

Speaking of variance, because so many of the stacks are short such a (relatively) large percentage of the time, you are going to see frequent shoves with any two cards, tons of long shot suck outs.

If that's your idea of a good time, look for an old guy with a stupid hat. I will buy you a beer.

Nozser has the best post / opinion. Stacks need to be above 100 bbs to reach above the rake caps and give yourself a chance of making some money.

Are the lowbuyin games beatable? Maybe. If you run above average. The rake is simply too much to overcome to make it a useful hourly.

What are your goals? Is it to limit your losses and enjoy yourself? Then play the $40 buyin and have fun. If you lose a few times, so what? Just don't expect to make a living playing in these games. Breaking even here is a great result.

The table as a whole might be losing $700 in 7hrs (arguably more), but each individual player is only losing 1/9th of that.

Yes, this cuts your hourly win rate down by 6bb/hr, but if you were previously an 8bb/hr winner, then you're still a 2bb/hr winner afterwards.

6betme is right about that.

Actually, assuming we play fewer hands than our opponents are playing (not hard to do, half the table is VPIP 50% typically) in this game as we are instructed in these forums, we are not actually playing one hand in nine - probably much less - and our "share" of the rake is accordingly less.

If we squeeze preflop as we are instructed in these forums, we are not actually paying $4 rake on the hands we steal, "only" $1.

If we are raising instead of limping as we are instructed in these forums, we are possibly getting sucked out on a little less, and our pots are a little larger on average, which are also a plus-EV things.

If we value bet more than our opponents and c-bet more wisely than our opponents as we are instructed in these forums, those also are plus-EV things.

If we watch the various $40 games in action and practice a little game selection as we are instructed in these forums, it is possible to join a game with big stacks rather than a new game with $40 stacks. On the other hand, by the time a new game becomes deeper-stacked we can know more about the players who survive and play against them better (if we were paying attention.) The value in a $40 new game is in the way the stack sizes escalate, not in the way the stack sizes start. It doesn't take long for the new money coming onto the table to start to outweigh the rake.

And all of these actions that are within our own control in "the forty" apply in the bigger games as well. For example, The $100 buy-in game (buy $150 if you bust) has a regular drop of $5 by the river and $1 for the jackpot. The game is 2.5 times bigger stack-wise but the rake is "only" 1.5 times bigger. Too bad the players are a little better. (Not 2.5 time better, whatever that means, but still better.)

So if you want to play don't be totally deterred by the rake. Just be aware that your decisions need to be sharp. But duh, isn't that true in any game?

Thanks guys and thanks Nozsr for the detailed responses. My biggest problem at these games is handling the boredom, as you need to play much more tight than with 100bb stack against other 100bb stacks. I've found that even though these rules put the player at a disadvantage, you occasionally find yourself at a table with players who are definitely among the worst I've ever seen, like who will call your $60 all in with J7s. So this can make up for it a bit.