Is it possible to win at 1/2c cash games?

[AKShark]

I like cash games because you can come and go like you want.
I usually play 1/2c cash games.
I find it very hard to win in the long run, and I think it is because the rake is too high.
Example:
Pot 160c
I paid 78c into the pot
So I win 82c
The rake is 10c
So I pay the casino (10/82*100)= 12,2% of my winning.
And that is just for one hand!!!

What if the rake was paid of the stack you bring to the table instead, would that be more fair?
Then it was comparable with rournaments?

What do you think?

 

[Pokerpoet2]

This is one of the reasons I steer well clear of cash games, Buying into a Ring Table of 6 or9 players and the rake is added into the buy-in at the start of the game, It's played like a mini Tournament and the top 2 or 3 paid out. You always know where you are and what you can win.
The only time I try anything different is when I buy into a bounty hunter game where your winnings are dependent on how many players you knock out. Cash games are something I play in a Local Pub where there is no rake and as I don't drink too much I am still in control towards the end of the night when most players are well oiled, buying chips for £20 at the start of the game and playing until they are gone or we are tossed out of the Pub at the end of the night. Many times I have walked away with £100+ in winnings from the cash Games, I think on my best night I won £165, Not bad for a couple of hours work, only wish I could do that every night, I would retire and become a Professional Poker Player.

 

[AKShark]

Ring tables gives me most of what I want, but the disadvantage is that I can't leave with my money until the mini tournament is completed

 

[fundiver199]

Most sites only charge 5% rake so 8c for the same 160c pot rather than 10c. This matter so find another site to play on. With 5% rake I will say, that 2NL cash games are so soft, they are easily beatable. You are obviously not getting rich by playing them, but you can beat them, if you have just a minimum of skills and discipline.

 

[AKShark]

Thanks for your advice, I know 888 is one of the most expensive sites for 1/2c cash tables, I asume that is why not so many play there.
I do not dare to play 2NL with my pokerbudget

 

[Station_Master]

Thanks for your advice, I know 888 is one of the most expensive sites for 1/2c cash tables, I asume that is why not so many play there.
I do not dare to play 2NL with my pokerbudget

2NL is 1c/2c cash tables. 10NL is 5c/10c etc

888 is fine to play 2NL, the players are mostly very weak so even with high rake it is easily beatable.

 

[pentazepam]

Yes. You can still play VERY tight at this level and earn money from the fish that comes in and almost give away money.

It's not optimal of course but a TAG style almost an NIT style rarely loses money at 2-10NL.

The regs will figure you out - but if you open up on the button and defend your blinds correctly you should break even against most of them. And get stacks from the idiots that come in and donate some buy-ins.

 

[najisami]

I usually play 1/2c cash games.
I find it very hard to win in the long run, and I think it is because the rake is too high.

In those micro-stakes, and regardless of the rake issue, the only way to be able to make any money is to play many tables simultaneously, play many hours a day and stick to a rigorous discipline. Just my opinion.

 

[LUKADONCICMVP]

u can make money at any stakes, but screw paying rake for this scammer sites.

 

[rhoudini]

I should only add that you are not paying all the proportional rake as mentioned:

So I pay the casino (10/82*100)= 12,2% of my winning.
And that is just for one hand!!!

If you contributed half pot and your opponent the other half, both of you have paid half the amount of the rake.
But you are quite right, rake is too high in micro limits, and that's why many top players recommend to play a pure 3-bet or fold strategy, with a tight-aggressive style, but usually more tight than most GTO charts recommend (remember that these charts are built for lower rake structures).
Also, you gotta have a great understanding of how to exploit players, because population tendencies really matter.

 

[laihuynh]

Possibly

 

[AKShark]

I should only add that you are not paying all the proportional rake as mentioned:

If you contributed half pot and your opponent the other half, both of you have paid half the amount of the rake.
But you are quite right, rake is too high in micro limits, and that's why many top players recommend to play a pure 3-bet or fold strategy, with a tight-aggressive style, but usually more tight than most GTO charts recommend (remember that these charts are built for lower rake structures).
Also, you gotta have a great understanding of how to exploit players, because population tendencies really matter.

In reality it is the winner of the hand who pays all the rake

 

[ramdon p358]

If profit is possible, the rake is currently very high. Several years ago this was not the case, many high stakes players started at these levels

 

[rhoudini]

In reality it is the winner of the hand who pays all the rake

It is not, because the poker room will count towards rakeback tracking just a proportional part of the amount the player contributed to the pot.

What you are seeing is the visible part of the rake. It just looks like winner is paying everything because the winner gets the full pot after the hand is over, but it makes no sense to say that winner pays the rake alone.

If you and I got all-in for 100BB and final pot is 200 BB, but 10BB is rake, if you win the pot, you get 190 BBs, but the final rake was a split, I paid 5 BB and you paid 5 BB. It is the same that we had gone all-in for 95 BB and had no rake, for example.

 

[AKShark]

It is not, because the poker room will count towards rakeback tracking just a proportional part of the amount the player contributed to the pot.

What you are seeing is the visible part of the rake. It just looks like winner is paying everything because the winner gets the full pot after the hand is over, but it makes no sense to say that winner pays the rake alone.

If you and I got all-in for 100BB and final pot is 200 BB, but 10BB is rake, if you win the pot, you get 190 BBs, but the final rake was a split, I paid 5 BB and you paid 5 BB. It is the same that we had gone all-in for 95 BB and had no rake, for example.

Rakeback has nothing to do with the game - it is a kind of loyalty program where you devide the rake according to contribution to the pot. It is still the winner who suffers, because the rake is subtracted from the pot.
I can assure you that it was not the pokerplayers who invented rakeback and other marketing gimmics to trick players into playing more.
Are you in marketing on one of the pokersites?

 

[oriole]

It's probably possible to beat the rake if you factor in the rakeback. However, with that level of rake, a tight-aggressive (TAG) playing style is likely the only effective approach.

 

[rhoudini]

Rakeback has nothing to do with the game - it is a kind of loyalty program where you devide the rake according to contribution to the pot. It is still the winner who suffers, because the rake is subtracted from the pot.
I can assure you that it was not the pokerplayers who invented rakeback and other marketing gimmics to trick players into playing more.
Are you in marketing on one of the pokersites?

Ok man, consider whatever you want. Good luck!

 

[Igor Popadyk]

my opinion is that micro-limits should be treated as an education, beating the rake is almost impossible and you can get stuck in this swamp, you need to try to get out of this swamp as quickly as possible, even at the cost of a deposit

 

[AKShark]

my opinion is that micro-limits should be treated as an education, beating the rake is almost impossible and you can get stuck in this swamp, you need to try to get out of this swamp as quickly as possible, even at the cost of a deposit

You might be right, but moving up in stake is also moving up in risk - I'm not ready for that

 

[Station_Master]

my opinion is that micro-limits should be treated as an education, beating the rake is almost impossible and you can get stuck in this swamp, you need to try to get out of this swamp as quickly as possible, even at the cost of a deposit

Sorry but this is bad advice. The rake is not that much higher at 2NL then 5NL and the game is much softer. If a player can't beat 2NL then he won't be able to beat higher stakes either, he will just lose more money.

 

[Cbabycee]

I like cash games because you can come and go like you want.
I usually play 1/2c cash games.
I find it very hard to win in the long run, and I think it is because the rake is too high.
Example:
Pot 160c
I paid 78c into the pot
So I win 82c
The rake is 10c
So I pay the casino (10/82*100)= 12,2% of my winning.
And that is just for one hand!!!

What if the rake was paid of the stack you bring to the table instead, would that be more fair?
Then it was comparable with rournaments?

What do you think?

Sure 100%. I only play 1c/2c fast forward/rush lately due to my patience been very limited at the moment. The key is to learn the players. Watch the tells, watch what’s out of the norm. Be aware of your own table perception. I think the rake on GG is crazy. But party seems ok, I consistently do well on there a compared to small stakes tournaments the time/profit ratio is better and you build loyalty points quicker.

This hand just happened on 1/2c fast forward - nearly $2 pot 🤷🏼‍♀️

 

[Cbabycee]

Bad call microcash hand

 

[Gutshot Gus]

I make money on them. I only play 9 per table as 6 handed will kill you trying to overcome the blinds. I use a HUD to identify the fish and the sharks.

 

[Shooter74]

I don't do well at cash game tables... I even try but unfortunately I can't...

 

[LUKADONCICMVP]

I would stay away from the micros as I am doing right now.