Adjust. Don’t be that sucker. Hand selection. Positional awareness. AGGRESSIVE.

In California, the situation with $2 in the pot happens unavoidably when 1 player limps, everyone else including the small blind folds, and hero is stuck in the big blind with a rag hand, heads up, out of position with a $7 pot.

If big blind checks pre-flop, dealer spreads flop, drops $5, hero is first to act with a net $2 pot. If post flop action proceeds check/check or bet/fold, house takes 71% of original pot (5/7) at full table, 43% at short table (3/7).

If big blind raises a standard amount ($10-15 in a 1/3 game) pre-flop, the limper will likely call, then hero plays out of position (pot size $22-32 after $5 drop). If post flop action is check/check or bet/fold, house takes the range of 13.5 to 18.5% after $5 drop (5/37 to 5/27), 8 to 11% short handed (3/37 to 3/27).

Short handed reduced drop is offset because more hands per hour can be dealt, and each player shorthanded pays a larger share of the hourly drop than at a full 9 handed table.

Either way too much money is taken off table, especially if you factor jackpot drop + dealer tips + drink money and waitress tips that get taken off the table. Yes, in California players have to pay full retail for drinks, and often use chips off table to pay. Every time somebody orders a drink, $5-7 or more is leaving the table, instead of the $1-2 tip in casinos that give free drinks.

The only way the drop becomes a small enough percentage of the pot to make the game profitable, is when the pot gets large due to additional betting with calls or raises post-flop. The drop is enormous for almost all of the smaller pots without significant post-flop action.

It sure seems like in typical low limit games over time, even the best player in the world who adjusts as much as possible can't beat the catastrophic mathematical effects of the drop in California. This situation will be even worse at 6 handed tables or shorter.

I could be wrong, or missing something important here, and am open to discussion if someone else familiar with California poker games can show me an alternative mathematical model that is realistic and makes sense, and shows how these games are actually beatable despite the drop.

You're argument is based on a player who doesn't exist. If you remove the bolded statement, that would still be a strawman because that's an extreme minority among losing players, but even that player would be affected by rake. In a room with less rake they'd be able to play longer sessions on average. Even for this strawman I'd argue that the amount of time lost is worth more than "a couple bucks." Almost no-one values neither their time nor their money.

^^

you are correct.

two types of players.... fixed time or fixed wallet.

some overlap but not much.

People who dont live near legal poker line up to play at places that make casino rake look like peanuts - they dont care and most dont notice.

I personally prefer six handed over a full table.

I'd prefer if $1/2 were universally antiqued out for $1/3.

Assuming at least 100bb max buyin, just increase bet sizing to adjust for rake.

Time to shove or fold?

In seriousness, that’s not going to help unless you were betting too small before.

This came up in a different thread, I think the threat to winning players is not the rake, it's the losers getting chewed up and spit out too quickly in a faster, more aggressive game. So ecosystem issues. I would love to go play 6 max vs. the players in my local casino - my advice would be to make some money while it's still available.

6 max games should be looser, which actually helps the fish play better. OMC waiting for KK+ is going to get wrecked though.

I earned my living playing $1/$2 in a card room pre-C19. I returned to same card room and after 5 straight losing nights quit after coming to the conclusion it's near unbeatable. $4+$2 is absolutely brutal 6-handed. I believe an elite online 6-max pro could likely beat the game for a thin margin. Virtually no low-limit live player can.

For full disclosure I should also note that the player pool post C-19 was tougher as there were more young regs and less weak older players.

Short answer - very easily. The rake in micro games online is very high - sometimes up to 10bb at .05-.10. In .25 .50 games the rake is 6bb-7bb and those games are tougher than these easy live games.

This $8 rake is only 4bb @1/2. it should be very beatable. And $2 of those dollars you will eventually get back in promotions so you can't even count that.

You really should be moving up to play 2/5 as soon as possible though, even if you have to buy in for 100bb/$500.

If you are struggling to win in 1|2 games then you need to devote more time to studying.

If you've played for a living you should know that while very unpleasant and fairly rare, 5 losing sessions in a row isn't that big of a deal. When you're on a downswing it's natural for poker to feel harder than it usually is. I would recommend taking a short break and going back. Don't doubt yourself so much if you have a long winning record.

4+2 rake isn't that bad. A lot of places still have 5+2. If you think the player pool has gotten tougher shop around, but I have never played a 1|2 game anywhere that I felt was too tough to beat.