$1/$3 NL Rake - Is game profitable?

Greetings all,

I would like to know what thoughts are on whether $1/$3 NL game is still profitable with a 10% rake capped at $15.

Buy in is $80 - $300.

Most players buy in for the maximum $300.

I’m a strong player (not super good) and most of the other players are reasonably soft (but not super fish).

Thanking you in advance and looking forward to your reply.

Prob not beatable. You need deeper buy ins and much worse players to overcome a 15 dollar rake IMO.

All depends, there are too many variables.

Will you supplement with vlog/YouTube revenue?

Will you sell apparel?

Will you sell strong caffeinated items?

How many hours are you willing to put into this before moving up in stakes?

Beatable but not for much and I’d employ much more of a TAG style than LAG. You don’t want to be playing a ton of pots for obvious reasons.

Definitely Player pool dependent and leaning towards TAG for sure.

I've seen PLO games with $10 rake and 'most' stacks at $500 or less be somewhat profitable but are they really 'good' games for sustainable wins?

IMO until you get to 'higher' stakes for that particular room you are going to have a harder time effectively beating the rake since no matter how hard you try it ends up being 3-5 going to the Flop, which typically generates a higher rake.

So we come back to the Players at the table. If you are not the fish, you should make a profit. It may not be as much as it could have been in a different room, but it's still a profit. Only you can decide if it's 'enough' profit for your goals. GL

10% capped at 5BB is certainly an issue with 27BB min, 100BB max buy-in unless stacks get deeper over the course of the night.

Depends on the definition of fish. If you have two strong players at the table you probably need at least three big losers or the third best player at the table might already be break-even at best.

Thank you all, I appreciate your insight.

I would conclude an outcome that my skill level is not high enough and that the opposition is not weak enough for this game to be ‘worthwhile’ profitable, given the rake. I love playing poker, but don’t love it enough to do it for $5 or less an hour.

Figure a conservative 20 hands an hour with half the pots big enough for the $15 and half the pots at $5. That's $200 an hour, plus tips, coming off the table. In a 6 hour session, that's half the money on the table.

So, no I don't consider it beatable long-term.

I laugh when people say it's not beatable, they've certainly never been to Australia/NZ - 10% rake is standard across all casinos, and home games for that matter, and almost all games are capped at 100bb buy-ins (in casinos). I don't get how players don't seem to find this beatable in other parts of the world, as there are plenty of pros across New Zealand, and Australia doing exactly this full time.

I think the lowest cap across any of the casinos is $10, with the highest being $20 - and homegames I've seen uncapped, definitely beatable still if the player pool is right. Game selection is key, and not playing again OMC.

Edit: OP just noticed you're from Australia, Assuming you're playing at either Crown/Star, 1/3 is beatable at far more than $5 an hour for someone that's a strong player. Most players are averaging around $20-$30hr at 1/3.

If you only play 20 hands per hour and half the pots reach at least 50BB, there's a good chance that a significant percentage of hands are huge multiway pots contested to the river, $500-1000 pot size, potentially higher.

That game should definitely be beatable.

FWIW, if $200 come off the table in rake per hour in a 9 handed game, that's $11 per player per down. That's something most loose players would be happy about.

Because that's an apples and oranges comparison. I have no idea about Australia but casinos in Europe have comparable rake and attract a totally different player pool than games in the US.

10% rake capped at $15 wouldn't be beatable in most public games in the US. But then again, if rake was that high none of the people who complain about 5% up to $6 would even be in the game.

There are lots of games in the US with a similar rake structure but they're not public and you don't find any 70 year old hardcore nits playing in them.

I'd say that structure is pushing the limits of what can be beatable. Game has to be very soft. And then it's probably beatable for a not worthwhile amount.