The worst game in the casino by far lol...With the low level of play where people call you down to see the river with bottom pair to try and hit their two pair and never folding ANY draw ...Also the rake being rake being a negative thing to beating it...Does any one think its possible to beat a 3/6 limit game?

Any good player would crush the 3/6 game before the rake. The rake as a percentage of the pot is what kills the profitability.

This has a positive effect (A) on beatability.

This has a negative effect (B) on beatability.

Very loosely defined, you want A > B. What CanadaPete said above.

It is possible, but it is worth the time? Even if you are crushing it, say 4BB/hr, your variance is going to be so high, and the rake eats up a substantial portion of it. I'd say 4/8 is realistically the lowest limit to be profitable and still you're looking at 12$/hr if you're running well

1 big bet (BB) per hour is the gold standard of crushing LHE.

Anyone who can beat 4/8 for $12/hr can (a) certainly beat 3/6 for $0.001/hr and (b) crush a much bigger game (40/80+) for 1 BB/hr.

Anything below 15/30 is non-competitive with a part-time minimum wage job in terms of making money. Anything below 6/12 may not be beatable at all due to rake.

Play 3/6-4/8 to get practice, build an external bankroll and jump up.

And if you can't figure out how to beat 9 people who call anything down to the river, you're not as good as you think you are.

Exactly this. The game as described in the OP should be a very profitable wild ride.

I am the biggest supporter of the idea that 3/6 is beatable. Even I admit you can't make a liveable wage, but it can be a good income supplement. The rake, of course, is the main villain. I guess most rooms have it at 10%, $5 max. I'm lucky, in that it is 5%, $5 max where I am. This may account for some of the disputes I've gotten into about 3/6.

Good luck.

Trust me im a good player...I understand the math in limit poker and I understand the concept of everyone trying too see a river making it easier to beat...I don't know maybe I am being pessimistic about it..Honestly though I really don't think its beatable..The main reason is that its worse then watching paint dry....

Ide pay some one $500 bonus if they could beat 3/6 over a 100 hours..Just dont think its possible sorry.

3/6 is beatable assuming players are bad enough. the problem is, no one who is any good would even bother wasting their time. If the rake was much lower (Say $1/hand) instead of the usual rate ($5), and assuming people would still play as bad as they do, it'd be beatable for a comparable amount as 1/2 NL.

It's a zero-sum game without the rake, so I don't really know what you mean by "Just dont think its possible". As everyone has mentioned, it depends on the rake.

What's your playing experience, like limits, online v. live, how long you've played, approx # of hrs you've played, etc.?

You don't think it's possible for someone to run well and come out ahead after 100 hours? I think that would be very easy. I played 2/4 for about 85 hours and was ahead around $350-$370, but 100 hours or less is such a joke as a sample size that I think those results are close to meaningless. I'm skeptical that I would win over 1000 hours or more even though I'm a much better player now.

Virtually no one can win long term, and the ones who do might win about $3 an hour. You're facing an uphill battle when it comes to beating what comes off the table in terms of rake and tips at a 3/6 Limit game no matter how well you play.

Yes, I think it's possible with a low rake or drop. The local casino used to drop $4. Not a rake, $4 was dropped basically when the cards were dealt. Doesn't matter much though, because pots were usually $40 anyway. I think it was beatable then, but when they raised the drop to $5 it probably made it a break-even game for a good player.

Gobbledygeek, a very good LHE player, played 2/4 LHE for some absurd sample (maybe 1,000 hours - his cardroom spread nothing higher) and was able to beat the game for like 0.6 BB/hr.

He's a NL player now.

Yes, it is beatable, given the right conditions.

It is certainly beatable if the rake is not atrocious and the players are so predictable that you can often fold for one bet on the river because they are never bluffing or overvaluing their hand.

It may also be beatable if the game has enough action that a significant percentage of the betting occurs after the pot is large enough to max out the rake, so that the last few bets you win are often rake-free.

Those are two scenarios where I am confident that a 3/6 game is beatable. Other table conditions, not so much.

Basically, you want to encourage as many multi-way pots (the more multi, the better) as possible. This will create bigger pots when you bet with the best draw. This will create protected pots where timid players are unlikely to bluff or make thin value bets. If the table has too many three- and four-way pots and you can't switch tables, consider changing the bottom of your raising range to calls, if that will lead more players to enter the pot.

He was including a jackpot and would have been a loser without it.

Assuming 10% rake 5+1 (or worse) anything below 8/16 is unbeatable IMO.

As for 100 hours...lol. I won 6BB/hr over 100 hours at 3/6 once and I still think it's unbeatable.

I won about $6-7/hour over 1200 hours of 3/6, mostly with a $5-max 10% rake (no jackpot drop), no jackpots won, winnings from promotions such as "aces cracked" probably included, tipping at least $1/pot, but not $2 unless the pot was easily over $100. I've lost my original spreadsheets, so I can't delve deeper into the stats, but I want to say I probably had a relatively low variance because I was exploiting a lot of regulars who had very, very predictable betting patterns.

I played less 3/6 once 1/2 NL became a game that was spread.

if anybody has missed the original thread by the OP, you need to go back and read some of the gold of this guy trying to be a pro poker player.


Also check out his 'chip porn' thread.


lol


Thank you again for unending laughs acesflow


and yes given a little enough rake 36 limit is beatable but good luck

I once tracked 150 hours or so at 4/8 at a casino that takes 4+2 rake. I ended up beating it for $5 an hour. I lost my records but I think that did include a ~$300 table share of the BBJ though, but since you're paying the $2 bbj rake then you have to include that in your win rate.

Yes the games are beatable, but barely. Depends on the rake. Just try and play in the games and see how you do. If you can beat it for minimum wage then stay there and build your bankroll. If not, then try and get some money and move up to where the rake isn't such a large % of the pot.

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: Nope.

I don't remember the jackpot part but he did have some kind of reduced rake IIRC. My point was that it's not totally absurd to think 3/6 and 4/8 are completely unbeatable.

There are plenty of people in SSLHE who have multihundred hour 6/12 samples at ~1 BB/hr - me, jeese, and MApoker have all posted graphs so I don't feel bad posting it, plus a bunch of others who have shared stats with me privately. So even with $2 extra rake (we all played at 4+0 places), I think 6/12 is beatable and 3/6 is close. At least in the SFBA.

I think Vegas (5% to $4) may have beatable 3/6 games, but Colorado ($5+2) may not have beatable 4/8.

I think we can agree that there's no real difference between a game which is marginally beatable and a game which is marginally unbeatable. That is, there's a grey zone between 3/6-4/8-6/12 where sometimes you're going to win a buck an hour and sometimes you're going to lose a buck an hour and it really doesn't matter which.

I had to stop read after this post. If you understand the math and the concepts then this should be a thread about beating the rake......which already exists.


LOL 100hr sample size LOL 500 cheeseburgers

hey what ever amount of hours you wanna do 100,200,1000,inf....It doesnt really matter because you can't beat a 3/6 limit game in a live casino where rake is 10% up too $6....

The NUMBER 1 reason you couldn't do it is because 1000 hours of 3/6 limit would be like hell...Actually I think of my personal hell being stuck at a 3/6 limit game lol...its so boring!

It can be a fun social game that is more entertaining than a no limit game where half the table is wearing headphones. There's usually more drinking and more conversation. It might not be as profitable, but it is often less boring. (But I am a nit who plays a boring style that involves a lot of folding at NL.)

If I won the Powerball, I might switch to playing 3/6 more than half the time.

First of all you prolly know this but Asians are not nitty...I thought your name was a joke lol..Asians are usually super aggro !!!! Just like old farts are uysually nitty...

Ive never had any fun at a 3/6 game...I play poker for the money and how it give me adrenaline rushes winning big pots...This is not happening in 3/6 limit so thats why its bad for me lol