I don't mind a social table. I prefer it. Way less boring when card dead. The only thing I don't like about it is the occasional guy talking to you who lacks the social skills to shut up when you're in a medium+ pot. I hate having to shush someone or giving them the look so they get it. I always resume the conversation after the hand as if nothing happened (or use it as an excuse to end the conversation if it's some guy telling another bad beat story).

Not a big poster but a somewhat consistent player for about 20 years. Then 21 months ago I moved to within 20 minutes of a poker room and started tracking. I am doing very well, which I expected as I’ve always been a winning player. I am surprised to the extent of my win rate (still somewhat on the small side sample size) as I play somewhat conservative/deceptively but with occasional bluffs. Thanks to the people who post in the live no limit small stakes forum (especially gg although not always in agreement with the stack to pot ratio stuff). I had trouble figuring out how to post my graph but stats are as follows after about 21 months:

Profit- $21,048
Hourly- $23.25
Cashed 103 out of 175 visits for 59%
B.B./hour standard deviation- 41.69 (not entirely clear what this means)

Played mostly 1/2 or 1/3 as I’m afraid my game of picking on weaker players won’t translate but looking to move up more consistently at the two year mark.

I was going to wait for 1,000 but I was too stoked after my current fire streak. Thanks guys!
Dac

For a second I thought it was troll then I was like "oh *hyphen* 21k, not negative 21k!"

Late to the rake discussion, but +1 to this take, imo.

You'll never find an *easier* game than 2/4 Limit circa 2006; seriously, the play at those tables set the gold standard for lol play and it's unlikely been reached since. But, that game was virtually unbeatable... thanks to rake.

Will the same eventually happen for the lowest staked low BI live games? I don't think it's impossible. There is of course a maximum rake where even the best of the best (let alone the best of the rest) won't be able to beat it. I'll admit I have no clue what it would be. But my guess is it might be smaller than what most would think. And eventually that will make even the lol kiddie table game a "tough" game.

GcluelessrakenoobG

Crown in Melbourne runs a 1/2(100) with 10% rake to $15 a hand. Can’t see how this is beatable

Yeah, personally I would highly doubt it's beatable (but haven't you mentioned in the past that you know pros attempting to beat some of these high raked games)?

Double digit rake maximums are already at lots of rooms (a neighbouring room here just went to one, so mine likely won't be too far behind). It's of course just a matter of time and something all rooms will eventually have to do in order to keep up with inflation / cost of doing business. Although others will argue that the lowest stakes / BIs may be increased to help offset this (which is possible).

Ggoodlucktousall,imoG

I'm not sure how long 1/3 has been around, and if it was a response to inflation. But if it is then that's a great step in the right direction. And I feel like all rooms should phase out 1/2 completely and spread 1/3 as the lowest. The max buy ins are usually 300 for both anyways, so the nits can't complain that it's a much bigger game.

I'm not sure. But it was around when I first started playing poker around late 2005.

The first time I ever played was at the Wynn I think they had just opened and they had 1/3 and the buy in was uncapped. There was this guy sitting at the table w/ 100k lol.

I bought in for $300 and lost it in about 2 hrs. I barely knew the rules and the hand rankings.

I've posted this hand before and can't remember the exact details except for the betting and that I had the 2nd nut flush on the river, but one of the first hands I ever played I had something like QT in a limped pot and on a flop of J 6 4x
4 ways to the flop it gets checked to last position who bets $5, only I call. Turn a brick and it gets checked around. River is K I check, he bets $10, and I call lol.

Games are already trending toward unbeatable in a lot of places with combination of bigger games slowly dying and increasing rake.

Funny back in 2010, most of us probably thought if poker were to die, it would be because players have gotten a lot better or they lost interest and moved onto something else.

In 2010, I was playing $3 rake and $2 jackpot in a $2/$5 game where the jackpot equity is around $10 - $12.

In 2020, games are mostly $1/$3 with $4 rake and $3 jackpot, and the jackpot equity is about $5 or worse.

Even if players are exactly as bad as they were, I would still have to improve my WR to beat the extra $1 rake and $1 jackpot (which is actually $2 - $3 after consideration of equity). All things equal, I would have to beat the game by an extra $10 - $15 an hour just to have the same WR.

Combining with the fact that games are becoming smaller and that edge is smaller...

I have never heard of any game with a $3 Jackpot drop. $2 is bad enough.
Where is this?

there are as many as 10 pros playing my main game which is also 10% rake up to $15, but that game is 2/5/10 (1000) which is way easier to beat for a profit than a game with 10x smaller buy ins

but there are also several players drawing their main income from the 2/3(500) game that has the same rake structure. I have a friend who plays that game exclusively and is over $40 per hour still.

That $3 drop is disgusting I hope it's staggered and not just taken every pot. That $4 rake though...

Not sure when $1/3 started, but I can tell you the first time I played it was September 13th 2009 ... at *Treasure Island* of all places.

Raising the blinds a little bit to $1/3 gets more rake in the small pots, which is bad, but it also makes it easier get beyond the max rake point so the % taken from the pot drops, which is good. Not really sure which is more important to overall winrate though.

That's not bad. It's still raked the same %. And also I'll feel way less like a sucker when I tip the dealer $1 for taking a $30 or $40 pot than when I take a $20 pot where $2 got raked and $1 got promo dropped. But you are right about how it makes it easier for the rake to get capped.

I remember playing at TI that was a fun game. It was also one of the only places you could straddle any amount UTG.

Lucky Lady and Viejas both had 1/3 circa 2006 where I played quite often.

$4+$3 is not a bad rake. If you can’t beat live poker the problem isn’t with the $7 rake.

You're right.

$7.25/hr is not a bad hourly wage. If you cannot make a living, the problem isn't with the $7.25 minimum wage.

I think you are missing the point.

Yes I am and I don’t understand your analogy either.

You’re talking about rake going up $1 in ten years, and jackpot drop going up $1. The EV of the jackpot drop is supposed to be fully returned to players so you’re claiming a $1/10 year increase in rake represents the game trending towards unbeatable.

People that only kinda know what they’re doing are beating the games for 8-10BB/hour or more over statistically significant samples. Live poker is not challenging to beat. You are playing against people who don’t even understand poker is a strategy game. Heck, it’s at least a weekly occurrence for me to run into players that don’t even understand hand rankings.

It would make sense for stakes to go up with rake if rake was being driven by inflation.

The fish likely won't see it that tho. They'll just see that it's getting more expensive to buy-in.

lol, you guys all think the fish notice the rake?!?!

Joey bag-o-doughnuts doesn't give a **** about the rake because he always wins. at least that's what he tells his boyz

and if they happen to be around when he loses.... he was just fuqin around that time.

[narrator] Joey was not fuqin around that time... or any of the other 70% of the time he lost.

I like the Mike Birbiglia reference.

i had to look this guy up. never heard of him. pretty sure that name predates his standup though, considering he's only 41

Oh. I first heard it on his stand up years ago. He called his brother that.

I didn't know it was like a common term or anything.

replied in chat thread, as this is a heck of a derail.

there's an uncapped 5/5 game I play in sometimes where the rake is basically whatever the dealers feel like taking out of the pot, I'll watch them take out $5 on the flop, $20 on the turn, $50 on the river with no real rhyme or reason to it, but I'm averaging a $100/hr winrate in that game so I don't really care.