Well you have to be really good. There was a challenge recently on twoplustwo of a guy making 100 stacks in 30 days and he was done very early. He also had a challenge before that with building a roll from 100$ and made it to PLO100.

I dont know about longterm winrates because you should really go for moving up quickly where rake is better. Get a roll and then probably go bumhunting over several sites. If you want to stay on zoom for SNE or rakeback purposes you have to be good. Average just doesnt cut it anymore and I think that reality should everyone accept before depending on a steady income from PLO. Zoom might be a fast way to volume but it might be better to grind normal tables to get better.

Cliffs: Its beatable if you are good. Rake just will eat you up when you make to many mistakes.

it's def possible to beat zoom but since there is a lot of reg table action at the lower stakes your $/h might be higher playing those.

Yeah I saw the 2z to 100z challenge, but the guy who did it is a crusher. For an average player learning to beat the games, it looks a hell of a lot tougher. The extra volume is surely better for the learning curve, but it could be tough to move up if your roll isn't increasing much due to rake.

Wrt moving up, how high are we talking? 200z still had some razor thin winrates, and I find it hard to believe that the drop in rake is enough to allow higher bb/100 in the 500z games given how tough they are. I agree that the best players won't stay at 50z or wtv for long so the highest volume players aren't going to be the best players, but you'd expect to see winrates climb at the levels above as better players move up and escape the rake trap. Which doesn't seem to be the case at 100z/200z at least.

The hard truth is: This is the state of the game. The rake on micros and lowstakes just sucks. The environment is more competitive than ever. I just don't give much about these comments that the game is still beatable because I read them so often and then you see the same guys playing the same micros half a year later. Its beatable if you are good but there are also things you can't influence like variance.

If I look at my stats I have an insane wr at deep tables. Samplesize is lol but the winnings would still mean that I could have moved up if I only played them.

I also think that lots of the videos you see about PLO just aren't made for micros. When rake is such a big factor playing superloose needs a very good understanding of the game otherwise you just burning money. Esp on zoom I think its better to play more shorter sessions for example few 30-45 minute sessions and then take a short break. I am just always baffled how much money you burn if you play with reduced focus for few minutes.

Yeah the comment about deep tables is probably a valid one. Would be nice if zoom was a deep ante format instead.

Given that so few people seem to beat zoom, why do so many regs still choose to play it?

IF you can beat it. That seems to be a big 'if' from the data available. Unless the data in those charts is incomplete/inaccurate, or there are tons of crushers at 500z who have moved up beyond the 50-200 rake trap. Which seems unlikely.

Do we have anyone here who has crushed 100z or 200z for a big sample to refute the info on 2p2?

Didn't schuller_alt beat it pretty good in his challenge? http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/38/small-stakes-pl-omaha/shuller-alt-challenge-1534979/

That said its ofc different for a high stakes player to crush smaller games than to assume that most regs will be winners. A few of my friends play z50. They say they are winners, and I guess they love the format.