nice run... for those that are "amazed", you're to used to online poker. I rarely leave a 1/2 table with less than 3x my buyin.
also. OP, would you mind a saying how you found this house + a few extra details. I'm looking for a new place and input would be much appreciated.

1/2 with a $300 max is 10 buyins. NOT the norm at all.

I believe he started w/ $4k roll and that's not short at all to play the 1/2 games. 2 months ago or so I had a +3600 session at the game in 9 hours. This will not happen everyday and I don't believe OP would allow himself to believe so either. Add in his big session and then a few other decent wins and he'll be plenty rolled to start playing some 2/5.

yeah, you are right, it's not like he's running hot or anything, 200BB an hour is standard

I got lucky ran into an old army buddy via craigs list

Mini update!

I'm out of commission for the next few days. Came down with a bad case of the flu. Feel horrible. So my first weekend will have to wait....sigh.


I ran hot and anyone who expects to consistantly win 3200 in one session of 1/2 NL is crazy. I hope but likely will never replicate the feat. However, back home I did win 3500 in a split 1/2 game.

Just some different shot-taking philosophies, that's all.

Anyway, best of luck the OP. I look forward to hearing how it's going.

Don't lick your fingers while playing haha.

Oh crap. I KNEW I kept forgetting something.

i happened upon this thread too late and am grunching here but:

read this first:

http://www.liquidpoker.net/pokerarti...variance_guide

if you played 60k hands a year, that would be a pretty solid year and a not very solid sample size. and with your bankroll/living situation you really cant afford to have losing years. doesnt matter if the games are super soft and 9 handed. it can happen. if you are playing 600k hands a year online this is significantly less likely to happen. playing live poker (exclusively) for a living is almost always a mistake unless you are consciously choosing to take a very large risk of going broke.

and then if you still think its a good idea read this, he was one of the (very) lucky ones and also has a similar i dont play online attitude:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...s-las-vegas-3/

after you read about him playing 1/2 nl after 2 years then skip to the end and read year 7 where hes now up to 2/5nl.

gl op but the odds are against you unless you get really good at poker real fast.


i assume youll just ignore the math and stuff and say hey ive been winning for x years and the games are so good how can i lose and i know so and so whos been winning and etc etc but it doesnt matter. the extreme variance that exists in poker is what matters. that, and what sort of risks you want to take. a much better idea is to go to school and play poker nights/weekends (better games anyhow) and then you can take a shot at this without it being your meal or having to cut into your savings if your br gets low.

you are running hotter than the sun.

Thanks for the link, amazing thread.

I think the difference is Dynasty DID play online, beat the game online, and decided he didn't want to play it. The OP does not beat the online game and does not want to play. Big difference.

To the OP, good luck as you're doing what I'm hoping to do within the next year or two. For the longest time I'd been a losing online player for many of the same reasons you state. It was always something I did just for the hell of it when I wasn't playing live. However, when I finally was able to crack the online game, I noticed it greatly improved my live game.

Just as many say mastering another game such as Omaha or Stud will improve aspects of your NLHE game, I believe being able to master online poker also will do the same.

First off I wish you luck Billy but just want to repeat which has probably already been said and add a few more things.

1. I can just about guarantee variance in this game is a lot worse than you think it is. If you or anyone else had experienced the bad side of variance in your first 100,000 hands of poker (and it doesn't seem like you've even played that many hands), you would most likely not still be playing. The fact you or anyone else who hasn't played a lot of poker and is still playing suggest more likely than not you're running good.

2. Refusing to play online and get better at poker is a really bad idea. NL$200 live probably plays worse than NL$10 online by a pretty wide margin. You're going to be leaving tons of the money on the table assuming you're even a winning player if you don't know some basic bluff raising/3-betting/check-raise bluffing spots which would be easier to learn faster online.

3. You don't even know if you're a winning player yet. Everyone who is a regular online thinks they're a good regular while most regulars are bad regulars, but the truth is it's almost impossible to know which one you are until you've played either a ton of hands or know poker players significantly better than you who can confirm you are actually good relative to the stakes you play.

4. I think people way overestimate possible winrates. Someone gets a 100,000 hand heater and posts a graph in SSNL or MSNL regularly and new players think it's sustainable, or live players play for a year professionally (which is maybe 20,000 hands tops?) and think that winrate is sustainable. It's not, so go in with reasonable expectations and keep in mind at best this will be a huge grind if you are a winning player and you don't run terribly.

That said it seems like you have a decent amount of cash saved up in case this all goes bad, so I wish you luck in following your dream.

hey billy how about an update.
yes i need a life.

Billy. Hates. Online. Poker.