100-200 casino games in Macau still profitable now?
I played 100-200 casino games in Macau several times recently. The table is like 7-8 good regular and 1-2 recreational players with just small flaws. The rake is 5% and 2.5BB cap. Do you think it is beatable long term in the table described? If yes, how do you think the winrate can be?
13 Replies
Sounds like a terrible game. High rake and no whales is fine if you want to get better but not if you want to make money. Although playing much lower stakes online would be a much cheaper way of improving!
Occasionally, you may find one rec player Allin 25000 with AQ, or call allin with JJ 40000 deep, turn into bluff with AT when you've already shown strength. But not that easy to see that, I'm talking about playing several hours to encouter one hand described above. Do these rec players called whales? Still a terrible game as described?
Sounds terrible to me too.
nah even the recs play nitty
5% 2.5BB cap doesn't sound too bad. What rake would people say is not high for these stakes?
Sounds like a pokerstars low to smallstakes game, which are definitely beatable by a decent clip if you're good. Just not the most efficient thing to do with your time, if you can find more profitable live games elsewhere.
5% 2.5BB cap doesn't sound too bad. What rake would people say is not high for these stakes?
It's because these stakes translate to roughly $10/$20 NLH that makes this rake high. You want to think of the rake almost like another player in the game winning at a fixed $/hr, because the stakes are higher there is less rebuy potential from recs as opposed to $1/$3, therefore more money going into the casino pockets versus regs. Also, as described above, the players are nitty, so that also affects your overall hourly. It's beatable but probably not worth your time.
It's because these stakes translate to roughly $10/$20 NLH that makes this rake high. You want to think of the rake almost like another player in the game winning at a fixed $/hr, because the stakes are higher there is less rebuy potential from recs as opposed to $1/$3, therefore more money going into the casino pockets versus regs. Also, as described above, the players are nit
Potential lack of rebuys is more of an issue for the long term sustainability of a game not so much what you can beat it for in the short run. It's not like the typical recs in big games lose one buy in and go home. But when they eventually stop playing or at least stop playing so bad it's hard to replace them.
People are also way deeper in bigger games than a typical 1/3 nl so win rates in terms of BB can be a lot higher in good lineups.
The table is like 7-8 good regular and 1-2 recreational players with just small flaws.
Lol five years ago a thread like this would be asking if a game with 3-4 regulars, 3-4 recs, and 2-3 whales was beatable with half the rake. Modern poker does not sound beatable. Just a regular slot game slowly losing 5% on average passing around rake with the same gambling highs and lows from a lucky session here and there falsely attributing it to your own skill level
Lol five years ago a thread like this would be asking if a game with 3-4 regulars, 3-4 recs, and 2-3 whales was beatable with half the rake. Modern poker does not sound beatable. Just a regular slot game slowly losing 5% on average passing around rake with the same gambling highs and lows from a lucky session here and there falsely attributing it to your own skill level
Modern live poker is still extremely beatable.
Now would I recommend low stakes nl as a way to make a living? Hell no. You're likely just going to end up on the hamster wheel for years and years. Life expenses eat up too much of your win rate.
If u don't think a game is beatable, youre not beating it xD
there's only 1 way to answer your question op
