I know 2-4 limit is impossible to beat on account of the rake. At what limit does the rake become a small enough % a good player can be profitable?

I've had a lot of winning sessions at 4-8, but table selection is really critical, you want a bunch of rocks with two other crazy players. It also helps to have a full kill table, as people wuss out when the stakes go up.

Don't play the lower limits at rooms that have jackpot hands or bad beats if you want a profit, as there are too many people there hoping for the big payout and hitting improbable redraws.

You have lost me here. While it may be legitimate to stay away form these games because the additional drop form the table make sit harder to win, you seem to be saying that you shouldn't play these games because people will play bad. Duh! I want people who are going to call bets hoping to hit some miracle bad beat jackpot. I want players who aren't going to bet when they hit a set because they are afraid that if they bet everyone will fold before they get a chance to hit quads.

I play poker badly. I need other people to play worse than me. the only way I will profit is if people are hoping trying to hit improbable draws.

The jackpot drop has almost nothing to do with why I don't like jackpot rooms. It's been my experience that there's usually five or more until the river in a lot of these hands, so pocket pairs or tptk hands are pretty much useless. I can beat a table with three or four horrible players, but it gets far less profitable as the number of them goes up. I've kept tabs on this, and the days I play my local room on non-jackpot days vs. jackpot days are way different in numbers, about $40 more profit on the normal days (this is about five years worth, but only six to eight times per year, so the statistics aren't going to be in conformance over so few hands).

It's true that in your basic roomful of dodo birds, a jackpot drop will make them play badly. However, I also understand the responder's point, though I don't agree with it. Even without a JP drop, though, 2/4 LHE is no fold 'em hold 'em. The only way to beat this game is to play where the rake is not confiscatory (i.e., NOT California). Then all you have to do is play mechanical ABC boring unimaginative poker.

Personally, I loathe LHE, especially low-stakes, because I would actually prefer Donkeybreath over there to throw his %^$%# A6 SOOTED away rather than calling me to the river with it. I realize that it's profitable when it happens, but making money this way is like cleaning up after a circus elephant, and searchng through the dung to find the occasional dollar bill that he's eaten.

I don't care what the limit is or if its no limit. I want every player to call every bet all the way down to the river every hand. If you can't make money in that game you can't play poker period.

I've played many, many hours of low-stakes limit poker, and my most proftable games are where you get lots of callers to the river. Its the signature of a table of fish. People call with incredibly thin draws and it bumps up the pot. Sometimes of course they hit, but overall the increase in pot size outweighs that chance. I see NL players on a limit table get terribly frustrated when their good hand gets outdrawn, but over the long term it's a price well worth paying for the larger average pot size. Patience is everything in this game.

I think paradoxically you often have a better chance of return at 2-4 than 3-6 limit - its purely a function the type of player you will be up against. Novices head for the 2-4 table. 3-6 tables are full of people who have played before, not rich novices.

I don't care what the limit is or if its no limit. I want every player to call every bet all the way down to the river every hand. If you can't make money in that game you can't play poker period.[/quote]

It's not a matter of "can't"---it's a matter of "is it worth the bother". The average winning 2/4 LHE player will be depositing 50-75% of his winnings in the drop box(es). With the high rake structures prevalent in most low-limit games, the theoretical two big bets/hr which is supposed to be the profit of an expert player shrinks to about 1/2 big bet/hr.

In point of fact, even against weak opposition, 2/4 LHE is a very tough game in which to make money, because of the rake. This is despite what a wonderful studly poker genius you may be; the fact that so many people are active in your pots increases your variance, which forces you to play a lot of pots to realize your mathematical edge, which in turn bumps up the rake that you pay. Or to put it another way, you would much rather put in $100 in NLHE as a 55-45 favorite than make 25 $4 bets with the same edge in 2/4 LHE.

I agree with everything you say, except maybe for clarity on the last bit:



The rake you pay depends on how many hands you win, not how many hands you play. If it took you three attempts to win that $100 pot it does not matter, you've still only paid the rake on the $100 pot once. And of course you've only paid $20 each time to see it.

I fully accept that against a table of even half-decent players you can't make back the rake in 2-4 limit. But you would be amazed how weak some of the players can routinely be, calling re-raises to the river with middle pair, thinking their pocket 5's are good in a four-way pot with significant action and 5 overcards on the board, and my personal favourite, thinking your two pair are good against a board showing 5 spades (the dealer in this one had to explain to him what a flush was).

Getting back to the original question...



I think that 2/4 Limit under the right conditions (low rake, not 6+1 or something) is possible to be a winner at. I've had this discussion before and I honestly think you would be able to turn a minuscule profit int he long run playing ABC paint drying poker.

On a side note I think that 2/4 should only be reserved for crazy drunken fun. For me you can't make nearly enough to justify myself rotting away in that chair.

_________________
-GolfBaller70

Just waiting for my next trip to Vegas...