5/10 becoming 10/20 as the night progresses, match biggest stacks, stacks around 2-15k.

$20 rake for pots above 100 (pretty much every hand)

A flat $20? That's very high for smaller pots, hits 5% at $400. Wonder what that means the correct strategy is? Seems like you either want to take it down pre or build a massive pot.

preflop is raked too i think, not entirely sure

OK but if you take it down with a $50 raise, then the pot is $65 and unraked since it's sub-$100, I assume.

Oh sorry, I was unclear. I think its $15 for less than 100, and $10 or $5 for less than 50.

Sorry I am just usually a MTT player, little homegame experience

This issue kind of hits home, because I had an issue with the rake this very weekend (mandatory straddle agreed by the players was interpreted as a raise in stake, thus in rake, which I also disagree with, but that's another story).

20 being the cap is not that terrible in a home-game I think. But it really depends on the game dynamics as well as on the players. In the the home-games I play at, the rake for these stakes would usually be 10%, no flop no drop (lol it's live poker, we know it's rare enough for them not to care), and 34+2 cap.

It's already very high. But the games play very very deep (rarely are there many stacks below 300bb BB), and the players are not the best to put it mildly.

I can't be bothered to do the calculation, but I am not sure your deal is much worse than mine. At 10/20, if you account for straddles and people being generally terribly curious to see a flop/turn, the cap would be reached pretty much every hand anyway. Just accounting for a standard open of 60 and one caller at every round, you already have a minimum pot of 110 every flop. And that's very conservative.

Then again, the value you get out of it really depends on the player pool. If people are kinda broke or tight, I imagine that you loose too much to the house to make it beatable. If it was a regular 10/20 game with a few competent players, I can't really imagine it being beatable.

It all depends on the game conditions. If the host is bring in a soft field, the game will remain beatable. If you are a breakeven player in a casino, it will be a losing proposition.

I'm intrigued by the concept of a rake in a home game. I've played a few home games albeit much lower stakes and they're informal games with friends with no rakes. If it's at someone's house, then people will bring along booze and/or food.

At $20 someone is making some money or does it cover something else? Like a professional dealer?

Or does home game cover underground game?

What is the host providing? Food, booze? Is the dealer tipped? Anything else?

Without some serious stuff provided, that rake is outrageous and I wouldn't play the game. If, however, very nice amenities are provided and the host incurs expenses, then if you like what is provided, then OK.

Yeah, that's an outrageously high rake. Like $600+/hr. Might be beatable if the fish are fat enough but only if stacks are going in often with one pair.

They provide a cheap takeaway dinner and beer.

Game starts at 5/10 with around 1-2k stacks, as ppl get stacked it becomes option 20 straddle which becomes mandatory within 3-4 hours later, the stacks snowballs throughout the night as ppl get to rebuy to biggets stack, and game breaks around 8-12 hours. The play is definitely on the loose side, I think there is some unsaid politics in the game to give action so you have to play a very competent LAG style.

Do they provide professional dealers and security? If people bring real money and it's not just credit run through the host, $50k split between table and pockets is enough money to attract undesirable guests.

Dealer provided, security is not a concern (large residential building), can play on credit (most players in game are vouched)

i don't think that's beatable in any normal game. Pots would have to be in the $400 range every time to be in the ballpark of reasonable. If they are then OK I guess.

There are definitely big consistent winners... they actually have fairly high VPIPs and always buy in super deep, and they eventually catch that 3-5k punt from the recreational players.

The thing is I'm not really suited for that style... for these games I just buy in 1-2k (100bb) and reload to that depth and play your average online style (mainly 3b or fold, standard ranges but ofc a little wider). Honestly my VPIP is probably the lowest in the game, but I am by no means a tight player by online standards. I'v played 4 sessions and I just win/lose 1-2k everytime which is peanuts in this game.

Bankroll is not really the barrier for me, I am mainly an MTT player who is rolled for 1k ABI, and I have backers who are willing to stake unlimited, but I am not particularly confident of my game. It feels like beating these games are more a discipline/self control thing. Too many times I see a lot of regs actually don't do that well because they eventually get tilted/pressured to give action and then embark on some 'GTO approved' play that just punts hard. Meanwhile the biggest winners realize the fish are ticking time bombs and just build image with very aggro preflop action and get into tons of spots with fish...

If the host is providing a dealer and credit, rake is pretty reasonable. Be wary if the host ends up owing you a significant amount of money. A lot of poker players will take the word "vouch" to mean, "I think he can will pay off what he owes" instead of the true meaning "I'll make good his debt if he doesn't pay off.''

+1 to all of that.

Depending on your jurisdiction the host also absorbs the potential legal problems of running the game and consequences if **** hits the fan in his home. It’s a reasonable expectation for him to get paid for that.

This game could be profitable if you could play nitty without being the party pooper who kills all the fun. I ask not just how someone plays but why they play that way—are they trying to be a winning player, out to have some fun, having trouble controlling their emotions, or just won the lottery? Why do these players want so much action at high stakes? Are they 1) CEOs, hedge-fund scumbags, British royalty, the children of Bill Gates who toss thousands of dollars into the pot because they spend that much every day anyway and are just getting a thrill seeing it all in green cash? Or are they 2) drug-dealer, maniac-degenerate gambling addicts who will soon ruin their families or perhaps end up in jail?

If they are more like 1) than 2), I would make yourself the life of the party and play nitty. Tell jokes. Bring some recreational drugs. Open a $200 bottle of wine and share it with everyone. If were Jerry Seinfeld, I’m sure they would let you stay, nitty or not.

Never play poker for money unless the cash is on the table. People who gamble even though they don't have the money make bad choices. You don't want to be responsible for Tony Soprano visiting your favorite fish. A prosecutor friend of mine said that in his career all of the people he convicted for embezzlement, all of them, had gambling debts.

We had a weekly (actually it was almost daily!) card game...recreational, among friends, no rake. I guess there was a rake, but it just covered the food/beverage bill since we played at a private club...no one "profited" from it.

Point I'm trying to make, though, is that since we played so frequently we would have a book of wins/losses and settle maybe once a week...some players, notably the fish, got in way deep. They paid for a while, but then a couple just vanished and defaulted on their debt...close to 10K between them.

And they were members of the club!

That's both inconvenient and a safety/security concern in a higher stakes private game like the one in question.

Especially in today's world where you can just transfer money to settle instead of having to get actual bills.