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

[Sintubai]

It is possible, but a difficult mission to make a long-term profit in micro cash games, the rake is exaggerated. To other limits it is similar.. I prefer to play tournaments beacuse i think the rake is fairer, but is different game and circunstances

 

[puzzlefish]

If you like grinding away hours of your life for pennies on the hour, 0.01/0.02 is for you.

 

[antonis32123]

I play this stakw only zoom and only to take the power path daily ticket , no more. Cause I am not an overall winner , so I cannot and I should not level up stakes . So no cash games for me . Losing is not fun .

 

[eetenor]

Rake at those levels will eat you alive---no one can be a long term winner at that rake level

 

[TeUnit]

Depends on rake, your ability, and bonuses like rakeback.

 

[dori111]

on a good day I won $20 on these blinds

 

[Highfish]

on a good day I won $20 on these blinds

What is your hourly rate for coaching?

 

[dori111]

What is your hourly rate for coaching?

I didn't lose a single allin that day..that was my record on these blinds..and I don't win that much every day))

 

[Suns of Beaches]

Rake at those levels will eat you alive---no one can be a long term winner at that rake level

No longterm winners on the lowest limit online? I would say that's completely untrue. While yes the rake can be very high, winrates can also be very high on 1/2 cent.

Just no 😅

 

[john_entony]

I play every day at this blind level on pokerstars to win a daily PowerPath ticket. After the ticket is credited to my account, I leave the table as I prefer to play tournaments rather than cash games.

 

[Ship Knapped]

You bring up a very important issue about the rake in poker games, especially at low-stakes cash games like 1/2c. The high rake relative to pot sizes makes it extremely challenging to turn a profit, even for skilled players. Let’s analyze your idea about an alternative rake structure and its implications:

Your Current Situation:​

• Pot example: $1.60 (160c)
• You contributed $0.78 (78c), winning $0.82 after the rake.
• A $0.10 rake means 12.2% of your winnings go to the casino.

This highly effective rake significantly impacts your win rate over the long run, as it disproportionately affects small-stakes players. The rake on small pots (often capped at a flat fee) eats into the profits, making it harder for you to cover the cost of doing business.

Your Proposal: Rake Based on Stack Size​

You propose paying the rake upfront based on the stack size you bring to the table, which is more comparable to a tournament entry fee. Here’s how this could play out:

1. Mechanism:
   • Players pay a fixed percentage (e.g., 5% or another agreed rate) of their initial buy-in to the casino as the rake.
   • Once seated, they keep 100% of their winnings without further deductions.
2. Advantages:
   • The impact of rake is neutralized for gameplay, allowing for more strategic poker.
   • The model becomes more predictable for players; you know the cost upfront.
   • Players aren’t punished for winning smaller pots or playing tighter, as there’s no per-hand rake.
   • It could attract more casual players who dislike paying rake frequently.
3. Challenges:
   • Variance in casino revenue: Casinos make their money from rake, and the per-hand system guarantees steady revenue. Switching to a stack-size model might reduce profitability, especially at lower stakes, unless carefully calculated.
   • Disincentive to rebuy: Players who bust and rebuy might feel like they’re paying the rake repeatedly, leading to dissatisfaction.
   • Regulation and logistics: Implementing and standardizing such a system across cash games might be challenging in live and online settings
   • Comparison to Tournaments

   • Conclusion:​

     Switching to a rake model based on the stack size is an interesting idea that could align cash games more closely with tournament play. However, its feasibility would depend on the willingness of casinos to adopt this change and the impact on their bottom line. For now, advocating for lower micro-stakes rake or exploring time-based fees might be more practical and realistic reforms.
     
     Would you like help in optimizing your current strategy to offset the rake’s impact
     
     In tournaments, the rake is essentially paid upfront as part of the buy-in (e.g., $100+$10, where $10 is the casino fee). This system feels "fair" because:
   • It’s a one-time fee for the duration of the event.
   • There’s no impact on in-game strategy.
4. Adopting a similar structure for cash games might bring them closer in fairness to tournaments, but the variability in buy-ins and the ongoing nature of cash games could complicate the model.

5. Potential Solutions:​

   1. Reduced Small-Stakes Rake: Many players advocate for lower rake percentages or higher rake caps at micro-stakes to make the games more sustainable. For example:
      • A flat 5% rake with a $0.05 cap could significantly improve profitability at 1/2c games.
      • Casinos might still make money by encouraging more player volume.
   2. Time-Based Rake: Another alternative is a time-based fee (e.g., $5 per hour per seat), which decouples the casino's earnings from the pot size. This structure is sometimes used in private games and high-stakes poker.
   3. Modified Per-Hand Rake: Adjusting the rake structure to be proportional to winnings, rather than the pot size, might feel fairer. For example, raking a percentage only from the winner's profit over their contribution.

 

[Station_Master]

The rake is not even that high, it's generally 5% which is pretty much the same at low and mid stakes too. The only difference is the rake cap is higher in BB terms, but this doesn't make a huge difference in practice when most of the players are super passive and happy to play tiny pots.

 

[Poker Orifice]

If you like grinding away hours of your life for pennies on the hour, 0.01/0.02 is for you.

I would hazard a guess that 'most' online poker players aren't playing with thoughts of an hourly winrate. Many just enjoy playing the game.
2nl is a great place to learn when getting started out playing online poker and can be a fun place to play at any time

 

[Poker Orifice]

No longterm winners on the lowest limit online? I would say that's completely untrue. While yes the rake can be very high, winrates can also be very high on 1/2 cent.

Just no 😅

The other day while playing a tournament on Stars, I saw a player on my table with an old note I'd put on them (I'm a chronic note-taker).
This note says it is was last updated on 2011 but the note refers to stats taken from a few years prior to that.

While playing on Pokerstars prior to 2010
11/8 (VP$IP/ PFR) CBet-53% 136,000 hands at 2nl (1c/2c) he won $380.00
Playing style - 'mouse' based on playing style (this was rated by PokerEdge... & these stats. are from PokerTableRatings & PokerEdge)
That is a winrate of 14bb/100. I doubt one could have a winrate of 14bb/100 playing 2nl with a playing style this tight in 2024.

Back in 2008, while building up bankrolls & doing many different promos (across dozens of sites) I took a bit of time to play on 888Poker, starting off with a challenge playing 2nl tables. It was INCREDIBLY soft back then on 888 and at the time I had a winrate of 45bb/100 hands while 20 tabling. (very hard to believe). A big contributing factor for this was 888 had a sign up promo where they'd give new players $10 to play with (might've been $8.88... I don't recall). Gazillions of players would open up dozens of accounts and they'd play like total maniacs on the tables. I was making ~$15/hr while playing 2nl - - eezy peezy. Also, the player pool was VERY LARGE. (ie. when signing up for sng's & they'd fill up before you could click 'enter')

Today I'm not sure what winrate a person could achieve on 888poker... not to mention that they cut it back to 4 tables (initially back in 2011'ish' they cut it back to 6 tables at first). It'd be definitely higher on 888 vs. some other sites (WPT is very soft too so is iPoker network (< but small number of players on there), partypoker at 2nl is also filled with lots of fish & would be easy to win there as well.

It would be interesting to see what a player could win today while playing at 2nl

@AKShark there's my answer to your original post

TLDR 'Yes'

Same player switched to play MTT's in 2017.
On Pokerstars they've played 17,684 average buyin: $5.49 ROI +23% Profit: +$23,960

 

[sibkaz]

At these limits, play only on a few tables, and draw only premium hands with aggression...

 

[gustav197poker]

Yes, of course that is possible.

 

[RALF_AK]

The best strategy is to stay away from the micros... as time is wasted... start playing from $5...

 

[Zipptydoodah]

At party poker the $.01/.02 games are very beatable. The rake first starts on a $0.20 pot which is $0.01. There is no rake for pots under $0.20. Make detailed notes on the players as you play. Table selection is the most important thing to win at these games. Always try to pick a table with 2 lower stacks and never a table that has a player with more than 1.5 buy ins. Party Poker has a feature where for example if you go all in and get called that you can get paid out immediately based on your pot equity subtract 1%. Example the total all in pot is $1.00. If you are 75% favored to win preflop, you can cash out with zero risk for in this case $0.75 - $0.01 for $0.74. If you end up winning or losing the pot you still get $0.74. Find the fish table and start pushing the ones that cant fold any 2 suited cards or any ragy Ace.

 

[thetick33]

i really think you need to play higher stakes BUTT that is dependent on your skill level and your bankroll....and what your willing to lose...you need rules to make money...not just how you play....if you have a 250 bank roll your good at 2.5/5 maybe if your skills are there...if your playing 1/2 you should at least be willing to lose 100....if 25/50 cent at least 25 dollars should be willing to lose...me i have the 4 rule so need 100 to play 25 cent 50 cent even....then you write notes on where you see weakness on regulars and beat the fish etc...its a job if you want to win at any stake and imo should be treated that way...so if your at 2/5 you need 1k brm so to speak....is tough rules but WHAT dictates totally what you play is your skill level you need to beat and be comfortable at each level if your not your TOO high on the scale and will probably be donating till you treat it like a job and get serious about it not trying to be harsh....but ya if your worried on rake? your thinking of wrong things and approach to be successful