cardcounter0 said:
search my post and show where I said tight passive. I said weak-tight. Do you know the difference?
If you think "tight passive" and "loose passive" mean the same thing, you're deluded. Players at $4/$8 tables are not tight in any respect, no matter what your definition of weak and/or passive are.
cardcounter0 said:
In the $4/$8 game I gave as an example 1 BB going to rake and tip would be $16.
No, it'd be $8. Are you, by any chance, confusing $4/$8 with $8/$16?
cardcounter0 said:
Since rake is usually capped at $4 with a $1 jackpot drop, you give the dealer a $11 tip when you win a pot?
You are correct in a general sense that a $3 tip (not $11) is still pretty big; I rounded figures to keep the math simple. If you want to nitpick what was an arbitrary number of people staying in to begin with, then just pretend I said 6 to the flop instead of 7 and 3. That gives a 8.5 BB win and then the rake and tip is 0.5 BB for the same net win of 5 BB/pot won.
cardcounter0 said:
A good win rate for the game you describe is 2 BB per hour.
So we agree, more or less (I contend 2 BB/hr is still high, I'd say 1 BB/hr is more accurate, but for the time being, we'll treat 2 BB/hr as the "agreed" figure).
The only question is then whether the games in real life resemble my game or yours.
cardcounter0 said:
If you know how to bet for value, raise instead of call, know when to pump a pot, how to induce bets on the river so you can raise rather then just bet, etc. you can CRUSH the game instead of just win. With such loose bad players that you describe, a good player can CRUSH game not just WIN. 5 BBs are totally realistic.
Let's calculate how much raising will affect the "agreed" win rate.
6 to the flop, 3 to the turn, 2 to the river, 2 to showdown = 8.5 BB's, minus 0.5 BB for rake and tip = 8 BB pot, +5 BB win per pot. Hopefully, now that you know what a big bet is, you agree with that.
40 pots an hour and about 20% of hands played means 8 hands/hr. If we assume that lost pots cost you about 1 BB on average, that means you're winning 1.67 pots/hr and losing 6.33 pots/hr to make +2 BB/hr.
If each of the pots is doubled now and ignoring people who fold because you raised, you now win +10.5 BB per pot won (17 BB pot - 0.5 BB for rake - 6 BB of yours) and lose -2 BB per pot lost, for a win rate of +4.8 BB/hr. If 1 person who would otherwise see the flop and then fold drops out pre-flop because you raised, your win rate drops to +4.0 BB/hr (+5/3*10-19/3*2); if 2 people do that, your win rate drops to +3.2 BB/hr!
In other words,
even if you could make +2 BB/hr with the game I described (and I contest that), you would
barely make +5 BB/hr
even when you assume nobody folds because you raised!
Even from your unrealistic starting point, your goal of "crushing" the game at 5 BB/hr cannot be achieved, much less the 10 BB/hr you first proposed.
cardcounter0 said:
Twice in your calculations, you subtract the blinds. With so many limpers, what are you folding in the blinds?
Because in that scenario you are psychic and folding every hand you know you're not going to win. And that means 90% of the time, you give up your big blind, and 90% of the time, you give up your small blind.
I would suggest reading more carefully and understanding that my scenarios are not meant to represent what I really think - they are to demonstrate how your numbers are clearly wildly exaggerated. I'm slanting every number in your favor to demonstrate that even psychics can't achieve the win rate you claim.
I would also suggest actually playing a game or two of limit hold'em at a casino before posting. You can say what you want about my experience, but I think it's pretty clear that I've spent more time than you at the tables we are discussing.