I've had some leaks in the past month but I didn't have many before when I built up 400 to 8800 in 3 months @ 1/2 and a couple sessions at 2/5. Then I started messing with more of a lag style thinking its more profitable instead of tag with some lag here and there and that's when the big downwing happened ???

And what do you think about buying in for 300 with a 5400 bankroll instead of 200 @ 1/2

buy in for $300 at 1/2 or $300 at 2/5 and are you going to play TAG or lag?

I idk I guess I'm gonna go with more towards tag since the lag style hasn't been as good to me. I think I can play both pretty well but playing lag is way more tilty for me and that negatively effects my winrate / bankroll.

You think I can play effectively @ 2/5 with 300?

In general if you are going to play TAG you should buy in full. I'd recommend continuing to play 1/2. Also, tightening up your game, at least in the short term, is the correct decision so that you can get back on the winning track.

Pretty sure lower is better for TAG relative to LAG, if by TAG you mean a tighter preflop range.

If you are playing a tight hand range, the times you have a hand you can play, you really want to maximize the amount of value you make on those hands (thus the importance of buying in full).

By contrast a LAG will win a lot of pots...many of which will never get to showdown and many of which are fairly marginal spots. In order to play shorter stacked as a LAG (ie 60bbs, which is not a true short stack) the most important piece of the puzzle is the AG...aggression. The shorter stack LAG can play loose but not passively...ie less set mining and less calling in general. It involves a lot more fold/raise spots, but is still done with a wide range of hands.

Obviously, if you are playing speculative hands passively you need to play deeper in order to get paid when you hit.

If you play a tighter range, the hands you play work better with a 60-80bb stack than a 100-150bb stack SPR-wise.

What app is this? I don't recognize it

I have searched for threads about the rake at live games and whether or not it's beatable. Where I live (Australia) it's about 10% of the pot, capped around 4BB's, for each game/level.

Now I'm seeing a lot of people say this is unbeatable unless you are crushing the game.

My question is: Why does this mean it's unbeatable? Would it not simply mean we lose 10% of our BB/100 winrate?

My understanding is that if I make 4BB/100 hands, then 10% rake/commission is only going to reduce this to 3.6BB/100 profit? Why is this not the case?

Thanks in advance.

i heard from a dealer where i used to play the following:
Game, 2/4 limit. rake structure:
no flop, no drop
at 10 dollar: 1 rake, 1 jackpot drop
at 20: +1
at 30: +1
at 40: +1 and capped
he always claimed, the game is not beatable.

Because you don't get taxed on your winnings, you pay for every pot you win.

Suppose, if there was no rake at all (this was a house game or something), you would win exactly $15/hr.

Now suppose you play the exact same in a casino, where you see 22 hands an hour in a FR game with 9 players. You win on average 2 medium/large pots an hour which are raked the maximum $5 (not in Australia, sorry). Your winrate before the rake is $15/hr, but you are paying $10/hr rake, so your actual earn is $5/hr.

Factor in other expenses -- perhaps there's a jackpot drop, maybe you have to pay for parking, the gas to drive to the casino -- and it's pretty easy for an above average player to be losing money.

4BB cap is way too high. At Parx Casino, the 1/2 and 2/5 Rake are exactly the same (10% up to $5, and no rake if there is no flop). Therefore, the max rake for 1/2 is 2.5BB and 1BB for 2/5. I still think that this is pretty high, but if you table select well; it's beatable.

I hate how casinos make BBJP a rake on top of Rake though. That further squeezes money out of your win rate.

Yea, but when I go to Parx Casino, I live about 25 minutes away, and have to cross a bridge. My gas is about $5+$2 toll to go back and forth. I usually buy food with only comps and I never tip dealers/waitresses. If I were to drop $10 in tips/day thats another $50 a week on top of $35 from gas and tolls. If I average $600/week after rake boom I just lost more than 10% of my earnings just for presence.

Wow, a regular who never tips. You undoubtedly have an iron cast stomach to deal with the wonderful additives the waitresses must be putting into your food and drink.

First of all, 100 hands is like ~3 hours of live play. So you're essentially a ~1.3bb winner if you're somewhere around 4bb/100 hands.

As for the 10% off win rate, it doesn't work that way because you are also contributing to the pot that is being raked, so 10% of your own money is raked as well as the profit.

So for example, in a HU situation where you win a 20bb pot, 10% rake means you are only winning 18bb, or 8bb of profit because 10bb is your own money.

30bb, 10% rake = 27bb pot, 12bb won or 80% profit.

So your WR is actually impacted more so than simply 10%.

The rake is completely beatable. (That or I'm gods gift to poker, which certainly is NOT the case.)

The thing to remember though, is that the rake comes out of every pot. Period. So it's not so much that you will lose 5$ per pot, it's that the table on average loses 100$ per hour. (In a traditional 4+1 drop.)
As someone already mentioned, lets assume that you are at a home game, and you are winning 10$-15$ per hour on average, this means in the casino you will make 0$-5$ per hour.
It's not the 10% if your win rate, it's anywhere from 100% to 30% of your win rate, depending how good you are.

I play 1/2 NLH at my local casino where there is a no flop no drop policy. The rake is 5+1 and I'm beating the game for $15/hr.
Game selection is key though. I rarely play in a tough game. I also keep tipping to a minimum. Not tipping is bad etiquette in my opinion unless I win the blinds or a small pot preflop otherwise it's $1. If you're a winning player, you're not playing many hands and tipping a dollar won't kill your winrate.

If you're a true pro you should max buy in capped games, or at least cover everyone at all times. You should be able to play any stack optimally, but the most money comes from playing deep stacked in live Poker. You can make arguments for what ever style you want but there is just no reason to buy in for $500 in $1,000 capped 2/5 games. None of these games are tough.

So if you make 6 figures a year at poker you aren't a "true pro" unless you buy-in full? Interesting.

Going to have to agree with this.

If you make 6figures at live poker buying in short that's pretty impressive.

You would make more buying in full.

No, I wouldn't.

[x] confirmed
[x] reconfirmed

I don't tip dealers, because half of them suck. I don't know how many times a dealer has screwed me over.

One time I remember very specifically at a 2/5 game, I was forced to sit in Seat 1 which I hate.

I was dealt 98dd in the BB. There was a raise to $20 and 5 calls, so I came along.
Flop was 567dd, and went for a check raise. The original caller put in a cbet, someone flatted and when it came back to me; the dealer was looking straight ahead and just pulled my hand in really quick when it was NO WHERE NEAR the betting line. I flipped out so hard, I was like "dude what the ****, I didn't fold." Not only did he do that, but when a floor manager came over and asked what my exact two cards were, and where he put them; I couldn't tell cause he pulled them into the middle of the muck.

Needless to say, the SB had 84s and got it all in against a set of 55's and the straight held. I was so ****ing pissed off, and all they had to say to me was, "sorry, sometimes dealers make mistakes". FFS.

Ya you got bigger issues.

Then you have some leaks. No great player should make more playing 100bb than deep stacked.

No great player should be playing 5/10 or less.

Actually, I meant I make more with starting stack of 60bbs than 100bbs. Theoretically you may be correct but based on the winrates I have seen posted on this board I do not believe that I could achieve a much higher winrate. I would have assumed that one of the math guys would have already valuated the theoretical loss of playing shorter stacked vs deep stacked but I have still not seen such a model. Obv, the deeper you play the greater the risk, and so the question is whether I want to take on that additional risk without knowing with reasonable certainty how much my earnings should increase, and the answer to that is absolutely no, especially because I am a proven winner playing short and given that I gain other advantages, given my style, by playing short which are not easily valuated.

10/25 here requires a minimum 80bbs so obviously I will need to make adjustments but I have no plans to play that level in the near future.

Can you please explain why you would buy in short to a 2/5 game and how that outweighs the obvious advantage of playing deeper with players we are better than?