This is a discussion on 200NL unbeatable? Why? within the online poker forums, in the Cash Games section; So, I'm thinking about grinding 200NL at a casino near where I live. 200NL is the lowest limit they offer and the game I am
So, I'm thinking about grinding 200NL at a casino near where I live. 200NL is the lowest limit they offer and the game I am currently have the BR for. My goal is the move up to 400NL, 500NL, and up.
However, when I google 200NL, I see a lot of threads in other forums talking about how it is unbeatable in the long run due to it's high rake. And this has always confused me. Isn't the object of playing poker-especially cash games-to show a profit for it? Does it matter how much the rake is, as long as you have some profit to show at the end of it?
Lets say I grind 200NL for 6 months:
-I play 6 hours a day @ 25 hands/hour = 150 hands/day
-I play 20 days out of the month = 3000 hands/month
-I play for 6 months = 18K hands/6 months
-At the end of it all, my total profit is: $750
($750/18000)x100/2 = 2BBs/100
As for the casino rake:
-Rake is $4 ($3 dropped + $1 BBJ)
-No flop, No drop. Say, 1/4th of hands per hour is being raked = 6 hands/hour
-6 hands/hour x 6 = 36 raked hands/day
-36 RH/day x 20 days = 720 RH/month
-720 RH/month x 6 = 4,320 RH/6 months
-4,320 x $4 = $17,280 casino rakes/6 months
So, the casino is raking in a lot of money during my 6 month grind, but how is that affecting me if I'm still showing a profit? Am I really concerned with how much the casino is raking in compared to how much I am making? I guess that's what has always confused me: If I'm making a profit, then what does it matter what the rake is in the end? As long as my money earned is more than what I invested, then I'm good.
My only thinking, and maybe I'm answering my own questions with this, is that 200NL being unbeatable only applies to those looking to make a living grinding 200NL. I am not looking to make a living off of 200NL because I have a steady income that takes care of my living expenses. 200NL, or making money through poker in general, is simply an added bonus but not necessary to sustain my living conditions. In my example above, I would've only been making a little over $1/hour in my 6 month grind which, obviously, isn't enough to make a living off of.
So, as a recreational player, who is looking to move up in stakes but only when my BR allows it, does this really apply to me? Again, if I'm showing a profit, then I'm good, right?
24th August 2015, 6:55 PM
For context, I am a live player essentially so hopefully this helps;
The reason they say the game is unbeatable due to rake is that you are essentially raking 5% per hand up to 10$ which means for every 200$ pot, you are paying 10$. This is extremely high and as rake goes up profit margins go down. I do not think the game is unbeatable but you need to be very good to show a constant profit in a game like that. Its unbeatable for average players but good regs do beat the game and move up to the 2/5 which is obviously more beatable as rake % goes down
You don't get 25 hands per hour live, its a lot less closer to 20 hands.
Additionally, is the rake 4$ every hand? as in once you see flop it gets raked? so theoretically you play a limped pot and the whole pot is raked?
The reason it becomes unbeatable is for a couple things, in a regular game the rake is caped at 10$, every flip is a losing play, 55% favourite is a losing play if money goes in, your avg equity when getting it in has to be a lot higher etc or it becomes a losing play.
If its 4$ a hand that changes those coin flip situations but there becomes a bigger problem, say you have a 5$ pot and you are raking 4$ regardless, that means its pointless to take the pot at any time. You lose a lot of equity in spots like this where any bet takes the pot. Online you would only be raked 25 cents, now you are raked everything.
The thing is, when the rake is high, your profit will go down cause you win less when you actually win the hand. If the average pot is 20$ for example and you are raking 4$. That means rake is 20% of the game. I would never sit in a game like that, especially if its shallow.
My math might be bad but here is what your win rate would actually need to be;
rake is say 4$ a hand that see flop, in reality you see 16 flops per hour at 1/2 with 20 hands played. so you are raking 64$ an hour and over 5 hours you are raking $320 over 100 hands. That means rake is actually 160bb/100 hands. Evenly split among 9 people at a table and that's roughly 18bb/100 for each player gone in rake
24th August 2015, 10:02 PM
Thanks for the reply.
Where I play, it's $4 if there is a flop. Usually, blinds just chop it if it's folded to them.
As far as each player paying 18BB/100 in rake, would your style of play factor into this? I play a very tight style in cash games, folding a lot of hands and raising with big hands. So, when I do go to show down, I usually have the best hand. This is used to my advantage as it later allows me to pick up limped pots or raised pots with a nice big raise or 3bet. Say i win 1 big pot per hour and other pots are picked up uncontested preflop.
So, I might be winning a lot less pots than those who play loose and enter a lot of hands, but I'm also paying a lot less in rake, right?
Is this something to my advantage?
25th August 2015, 1:23 AM
Poker at: ACR
re: Poker & 200NL unbeatable? Why?
You got it good, here our pots are raked up to $7. Only pots that don't get raked pre are chops. So if you raise pre and get no callers they rake $1 and you win $2 :/ The rake is $5 + $2 for promos and promo rake is taken along with regular rake AND they round up so $15 pots are raked for $4 which is ridiculous! Luckily the room is stupid soft and people cold call 3 bets with hands like K5 soooted from the blinds on a regular basis. Rake still makes me not even want to play until I can move up to 2/5 though. Just need the roll
25th August 2015, 2:19 AM
Ouch, $7 is harsh.
So, let's say 200nl is unbeatable in the long run due to rake. What limit should I aim to play at I'd the rake is $4? I think the next limit offered is 500nl.
I do have the BR for 200nl @ 20 max buy-ins and I increase it by 1 buy-in per month from monies I have left over after all my expenses. However, and I'm sure this frowned upon, but I tend to short buy at the tables. This is not because I'm afraid of losing money, but because it plays into my tight image as well. And once I've build a stack equal to max buy-in, I can play a little bit looser and make more moves to try and pick up pots with good results now that people have established I'm a tight player. This, of course, depends on if I run well when playing as a short stack.
So, with that said and if 500nl is a beatable stake, should I just save my BR until I have enough to short buy into it. To full buy would mean I need a BR of at least 10k for 20 buy-ins, which would take a ridiculously long time to save for.
I guess my other option is to play 200nl max buy-in, run well, make lots of profit, and then move out of that limit as soon as I can.
Also, I found a card room that has 200nl and $3 rake, but it's set up as $1/$1/$2 blinds. Or basically $2/$2. Is this beatable and what is the purpose of blinds like this?