dude. 3k hours? that almost spans a three year time period. within that amount of time so many things outside of the quality of your play are going to change that the first 100 hours are not even comparable to the last 100 hours.

for example, the 1000 hours your hourly could be 20/hr higher just because of one fish. after he goes bust, you could actually be playing a much higher quality of poker, but still making a lower hourly.

I was looking for this answer.

And it is true. 5000 hours (2.5 years) would give a reasonable sample of how a player is truly faring in a live game ---- but obtaining 5000 hours of any similar game condition is totally inconceivable.

Therefore, we are left with daily observation of game, and determination of whether we have a significant edge of not and whether to play. The edge will vary often, thus creating even more variance. Winrates at online poker have been shown over and over to be variance streaks even at 200k samples. And this is where the game conditions are relatively similar. At live poker, it is just all over the place, the conditions.

To me at live poker most really good players know when they are the favorite in the game. They play, and then quote hourly rates etc only in hindsight.

Jlodog hopefully would deduct some infraction points from my account lol.

Winning players can have very long break even stretches online because online games are generally tougher and edges are smaller (if anyone would like to debate this point, I would be happy to). If a 2 ptbb winner runs 2 ptbb under EV for 200k hands, he will break even. If a $50/hour live 5/10 player runs 2 ptbb under EV for 200k hands, he will still make $40/hour (assuming 25 hands/hour).

Online tables can have tough or easy line ups, just like live poker.

A live player who plays 200k hands? Not sure if we can have a meaningful sample size.

[QUOTE=The Muffin Man;30601594]Winning players can have very long break even stretches online because online games are generally tougher and edges are smaller (if anyone would like to debate this point, I would be happy to). If a 2 ptbb winner runs 2 ptbb under EV for 200k hands, he will break even. If a $50/hour live 5/10 player runs 2 ptbb under EV for 200k hands, he will still make $40/hour (assuming 25 hands/hour).



All i usually mean on this subject is that estimating true % edge which changes at ever table we sit at + the ever evolving game conditions + the large sample size needed at 30 hands an hour etc. make estimating winrates absurd to a degree. Example. Years back a friend of mine had beaten the 20-40 Commerce game for ~200k a year for like 6= years and wo9uld quote his "current" winrate in the game. He (correctly) would say as long as the conditions dont change, this is his expected. The game isnt worth playing nearly as often these days (he says) and thus this hourly rate that was once quoted has now evaporated.

I think the question is more like "I just passed the bar and will open a small office, so how much can I make?" Well, depending on where you live, how good a lawyer you are, how good you attract and can retain clients of wealth and on and on, you may make $50k a year or $2 Million+ a year.

Winrates are so arbitrary and broad stroked (plus lied about) so much that it is a pet peeve topic of mine, so I guess just overlook my rant on it.

AintNoLimit,

While I broadly agree with your points, I think it's still useful to talk about winrates, provided that everyone involved understands that live winrates come with a healthy dose of "whatever."

It's still useful to know whether it's possible to win $40/hour or $100/hour at 5/10. Especially to, say, someone transitioning from online to live that has no idea what winrates are possible. If you're making 40/hour and others are making 100/hour, you know that you're likely making massive mistakes and that it would behoove you to work on your game.

Talking about one person's winrate might be somewhat meaningless, but gathering data points from lots of people can be very helpful.

This response is what I was trying to get out of this thread. Just a range in different games over a reasonable sample size so that people can set some realistic goals for themselves. It seems to me that there are very few people out there making over this hrly over 1K+ hands.

Part of my post got deleted. Meant to say there are few people making over $100/hr over a 1K+ hand sample size in 5/10 live.

I can infer w/ some reasonable certainty that current game conditions in live poker, given the economy and influx of online players, is at a low point. I feel like a 2011 grinder should be able to make more money in the future when/if the economy rebounds.

Having said all i did (since its a rant of mine), i will say that you are 100% correct above. It IS a very decent fact to know that if you are truly a very good 5-10 player in an area where the game goes routinely and is usually decent, that anywhere from the ground up to ~$100 an hour is the train that you are taking.

I guess I rant about the specifics and arguments that come over winrates because so many players feel they can quantify their edge and justify how they do it, only to be puking out a different story like 2 years later etc. Ive been around the rooms too long I guess so the stories get me worked up a bit.

losing is more fun, lets talk about loss rates

I think u guys are drastically underestimating sample size. In all honesty you would need a 80k to 100k minimum hand sample size. At 30 hands an hour that would take years. I think most of you are on 20k hand heaters. I win usually around 3bb/100 hands online...and Ill go through 20k even 40k periods where I'm losing or breaking even.

This is a good point. Most everyone intuitively feels this but, this is the first I have seen it articulated. In the last quarter of 2011 I have noticed break-even, and slightly neg regs, playing marathon sessions like never before. I think this is due to the fact that, they stay longer when stuck, and they are stuck more often than not these days.

Of course this is backward logic. Clear thinking tells you to hit the road when losing (for many reasons), and stay when winning. As a result, clear thinking winning players are sitting in these games where the players have played through the night, and are tired and stuck, thus gaining a slightly larger than normal edge over them.

Also noticed the slightly winning regs who, due to the conditions stated above, now find themselves slightly losing, are motivated to study, and improve their game. The economy will come back, and the extra time put into self-analysis will improve the bottom of the "student player."

You cant really compare a 3bb/100 winner to a big live winner - I mean if someone makes 100/hr at 5/10 at 25-30 hands an hour, they're winrate is like 30-40bb/100......there's really no comparison

+1. A small variation of just a couple bb/100 can turn a winning online player into a losing player. That same variation is just a blip for a solid live winner.

In the Las Vegas games, I think an average winning full-time professional 5-10 live NL poker player will make about $50/hour. For a great winning full-time professional live 5-10 NL player there, winrates of $75/hour are achievable.

In the LA games, I would say that an average winning 5-10 NL pro probably makes $40/hour. Similarly, I would say that a great 5-10 NL live pro there would probably make $65/hour.

Games have definitely dried up significantly in the past half year. I would never have believed that winrates would fall to this level, but games have clearly deteriorated significantly in recent months.

I find this difficult to believe. Due to my location I could only play 1/2 300max for 2 years and 500max for 1 year. My winrate over 3 years is $63/h...I would think that a good thinking pro (not an ABC nit) with decent game selection has to make $100/h at 5/10. I play part-time (1300h sample), but I have played live (1/2 to 5/10) for 8 years and know a good game when I see one.

From a sample of sessions of 2/5 1k max at the V over the past 2 years I have to think that with good table selection those games are beatable for at least my current rate. I have sat in a few terrible games but there are usually good ones a few feet away.

Comparing 100k hand online breakeven streaks to live is irrelevant for the most part.

I've used statistical methods to estimate that my "true" live win rate is somewhere between $18 and $51 per hour, with 95% confidence.

I've logged 1037 hours of live poker, and I track the length of each session. Using this data, I have a script which calculates the sample standard deviation of my win/loss per hour, and which then calculates a confidence interval for win rate using the recipe I found here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3162427AALf9tS

The interval I found is a lot smaller than I thought it would be, which I think indicates that a mere 1000 hours of live play CAN potentially be enough to get a very rough idea of your "true" win rate, with a few caveats...

I have a very tight, very passive style, which I assume means that I suffer from significantly less variance than most poker players. A more aggressive player probably needs significantly more hours before they can achieve statistical significance.

In fact, it seems that the number of hours required to achieve a given confidence interval is proportional to the SQUARE of the standard deviation. So, for example, if a given player was ten times as aggressive as me, they would presumably have an hourly standard deviation that was ten times larger than mine, and they would therefore need to log ONE HUNDRED TIMES as many hours as I've logged before they could be as sure as I am of their win-rate, even if our win-rates were exactly the same.

And of course, there are all the normal caveats about the games always changing / getting harder / sampling bias / logging errors, etc, which could easily make my analysis meaningless.

Apologies if anything I've said here is incorrect. I just worked out the math/code today, following some random recipe I found on yahoo answers, so everything I've said could easily be wrong (also, I got a D in probability/statistics in college ;P).

Edit: My "standard deviation per hour" is $271, in case anyone wants to compare numbers. I see that some other people have already posted theirs in an iphone screenshot. If you want, you can PM me a) your hourly rate, b) your stddev/hour and c) the number of hours you've logged, and I can tell you what your 95% confidence interval is.

Here's the algorithm I'm using to find confidence intervals (python code):

n=1031
s=580.61
xbar=86.86
E=transcendental.stdtri(n-1,1-.05/2)*s/math.sqrt(n)
print xbar-E, xbar+E

Where "n" is the number of hours logged, "s" is the stddev/hour and xbar is the average rate. The package I'm using to deal with "student t" distributions is here, http://bonsai.hgc.jp/~mdehoon/softwa...n/special.html

The output implies that ThatsWhatIDo makes between $51 and $122 an hour at 2/5, with 95% confidence (I took the data from the iphone screenshot he posted). This interval is actually a lot tighter than I thought it would be.

Thanks brah!

What app is this, and is it available in the Android market?

Thanks.

Try poker log for android

Thanks - is that the same app or a little different?

the app im using is called poker journal, not sure if they have it for android.

Couldn't find it on the market Thanks though! Might get an iPhone soon! (not just for the app)