Hi,
I have read a lot of discussions on why someone wouldn't be able to build a large enough bankroll to move up, and keeps playing at NL2. I just think the 6% rake is really huge, and it is a lot easier to beat other players than to beat the rake.
If you consider (at NL2) an average pot of $0.30, then there is a $0.02 rake on it. If you play 100 hands, that is $2. There are 9 people at the table, so you pay about $0.22. That is 11 BB!!!
I have heard that someone who can make on average 5 BB / 100 hands, is a good player. But if I make 5BB, and the rake is 11BB, then I actually lose -6BB/100 hands!
Another painful example: Suppose you just play 2 hands, you start with $2, you go all-in (against $2), and win. Then you actually get ($4-rake)=$3.76. The the next hand you go all-in again (against $2), but this time you lose. Then you are left with $1.76. You actually lost 12% of your capital, although you have played all right... That is a huge loss!
This makes me also wonder if all the formulas we learn in all the articles are correct or not. They do not consider the rake. It actually does not seem to be profitable in the long run to go all-in when I have 51% chance of winning. In fact, it seems to me that I need at least 56% chance to be able to beat not just my opponent, but the rake too!!!
