1$ per hand for a dealer is all we ever want. Yes its nice to get a redbird(5$) toke sometimes but if I am dealing limit game and not getting 35 hands out per hour I'd quit dealing before I ever expected players to tip 2-3$. I only tip that way to other dealers that play in my room from other rooms. If your not a dealer you should only tip 1$ per hand every hand no matter the size(assuming its not just blinds). That should save you tons. Highly agree with getting two waters per tip from servers and getting own drinks if possible to. Players really need to understand that over tipping doesn't make us more money if your not winning in the long run. The longer your able to play the more money we can make as dealers. 1400 hands a week maybe win 80-120 hands in a week. Thats already alot going out at a 1$ a hand in profits but if your tipping 240-360 a week thats 5-6 buy ins a month or a house payment. JUST REMEMBER 1$ A HAND IS PLENTY WE DON'T EXPECT MORE.

always_tilting is some kind of joke or gimmick account so i wouldn't worry about that. and i didn't say you were lying, so please don't get that impression.

i was initially wrong here, assuming i did the projections right, and i think it's because i was thinking of online poker winrates (1/100 is very solid) as compared to live poker winrates (3/100 probably doable for the majority of your sample).

i estimate your hands played at about 550k or so, which is a nice sample and pretty rare to see for a live player. using: http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tool...nce_simulator/

i put in 1000 trials, stdev of 13, and winrate of 3/100 - roughly equivalent to a bet an hour which was more doable back then than it is now.

it looks like there's only a 3 or 4 percent chance of a 300 BB downswing over that sample size.

if i put in the same info but change the winrate to 1/100 instead of 3/100, the chance of a 300 BB downswing jumps to over 80 percent.

so, my apologies for getting that one wrong.

fwiw i'm at something like 850k hands in my current HEM database, winning at about 1/100 for online LHE, and i've had a 900 BB downswing as well as several 500s/600s and many 300s. this includes lots of shorthanded and some heads up play so it changes the standard deviation obviously. as a result, my (and i assume other winning online pros') threshold for what constitutes runbad/a downswing/noteworthy/kittens/etc has changed over time and is probably different than that of most live players

Hi Babar, you forgot to multiply the stdev by the sqrt(3) when converting the numbers to per 100 hands. The chance of a 300BB downswing goes up to 96+% over 500,000 hands (using the tool you linked) when using the correct numbers.

Some players just run hot literally forever, not that there is anything wrong with that

No problem. You aren't the first one to call me lucky.

Even good games these days are significantly more aggressive than in the past. My win rate over the last 2 years has dropped, while my SD has went up almost 20%. So I assume this will definitely make for some larger swings than I've been used for the bulk of my career. I recently had a 95BB losing session, although most of it was playing 3-4 handed and I probably didn't have much of an edge because it was a rare marathon session for me. Bottom line is, my swings seem to be increasing so the dreaded 300BB downswing that I've managed to so far avoid, is looking more and more likely to finally occur.

Btw- Cool link. Bookmarked. Thanks.

The bulk of my hours are roughly split between about 65% @ 20/40 and 35% @ 40/80. When I first started playing I logged about 2000 @ 5/10 and 10/20. I also have 2200 hours @ 100/200. Everything else is <500 hours, so not worth mentioning.

Online is a completely different animal for me, where I've experience numerous +500BB downswings. I think I got close to -1000BB once.

But this is because the games have gotten a lot more aggressive and tougher, right? I've heard the variance at nl is lower, but is it really THAT much lower for a good player?

Wow, I just want to reiterate how incredible it is that you haven't had a 300BB downswing after .5million hands. Even if you were a huge 1.5BB/hr winner for the whole 17k hours!, 300BB downswings occur for 80% of the players that win at that rate!! (after that many hours)

I understand games were way softer before 2006 but just considering your last 5000 hrs played in the last 5 years at 20/40 and higher: players winning at 1BB/hr (as their real rate) have around 80% chance of a -300BB downswing in just that time.

Just to reiterate, your experience isn't normal (in neither the statistical, common or any meaning of the word that I know)

I am in awe, nice.

My standard deviation is also lower than the numbers you guys are using. It's about 11 for 20/40 and 12 for 40/80.

You guys are scaring me. I honestly don't feel like I've been unusually lucky.

When I have some time, I'm going to go through my records more thoroughly to see if I'm wrong. Statking does not track BBs (other than win rates and standard deviation). In terms of upswings and downswings, it only tracks money in terms of graphs and results. It's possible that if I add different games together I might find something .

I know I've had multiple 200BB slides. I also know that I've went +600 hours without making any new money a few times. I once lost +200BBs in roughly 90 hours, spent the next 200 hours making it up, then slid another +200BBs! By the time I made that back, it was almost 800 hours! I tend to be much more aware of this than down swings, since I'm playing for my living. 800 hours is an incredibly long time to work without getting paid.

Chasqui! Thanks for the info and the graphs dude.

You should post your live 8/16 WR as well. Its pretty impressive and wasn't it around 1k+ hours?

To Anyone here: What about players like the Nopairparkers and LVQvolleyballs of the live LHE world who never seem to lose much and have live win rates that are higher than most? How do players like this fit into these stats I wonder? I mean aren't there going to be some peeps who just run really good(as well as play good)most of the time and just win a lot? Its possible that they never will or never have had huge downswings. Not saying they have never lost but there are going to be a few who will have abnormally higher win rates than others aren't there???? It's possible.

Its also very possible and probable that some of the best ever just ran really bad at some point (either early on or after playing for some time)and are never heard from again. I heard rumor of some guy who was considered an amazing player and super intelligent who just flat out ran so bad that he just waved the white flag. Probably rare but happens

I've run pretty hot at 8/16 for 1300hrs. I've experienced 3 sizeable downswings in that short run: two -150BB and one -270BB. My game had a full kill so that increases the StdDev by quite a bit in the short term.

The winning players that appear to never lose: for any winrate, 50% of those players will always run over average (by definition, ha ha)

On the other hand, the winning players who can't win are the tail end of the distribution: you can see form the graphs how a winning player has a 3% chance of breaking even for over a thousand hours, even with reasonable winning stats. If they hit that bad streak starting their poker career, that 3% of the players probably never made it to the end of the year. I think most players who play for a living probably didn't run too bad at the start , or if they ran bad at least knew what they were getting into.

Some other things to take in. For those of us who have experienced downswings more than once, I think that most of us can handle them way better than some who never have had any serious ones. Builds Character:P Still they suck but once you've been through them it gets a lot easier to handle just from being thru the fire.

I'm sure that for some like BBB who has posted in the past and present about some massive OL downers, having them live must seem like not a big deal for the most part.

Now repeatedly getting the a$$hole card is quite another topic

I always thought that the old adage what doesn't kill you; makes you stronger, applied perfectly to poker.

Nah. While you can run severely behind expectation for thousands of hours, a top player will almost certainly be on the right side of zero within 1000 hours or so. The only way I see your scenario happening is if an unlucky player were also under rolled (which I'm sure is often the case). The edges in poker are small, but water seeks its level eventually.

I do agree that many of us who eventually made it as pros (especially from the old days) were lucky enough to run good while we still sucked and were learning the game.

This thread should be standard reading for anyone considering playing LHE seriously.

Thanks everyone.

I wish this us up 6 months ago.

facepalm

frond is this a serious post?

Oh Hai Gize

So there is good stuff here and I have some points to add.

1. As games get tougher win rates fall AND StDevs rise. This is a quite a whammy, and you can make the graphs look almost however you like depending on how estimate these truly unknowable quantities. I personally believe that they should be .75 and 12 for most live 40 type games in today's climate for very good players.

2. Lestat you have been slightly fortunate. That's fine. You also probably spent much of your career at 1.5 and 10. Things are gonna get worse.

3. Babar, way to admit you made a boo boo.

4. Lestat nailed it; the live pro swong is not measured in "bets lost" but rather "months broken even". 8 is muy guapo.

also 300 is about a bad as it's ever gotten for me, but if you mix games your "months broke even" stat can get heavy.

Yes, no, sometimes yes and no.

Ok more serious, I wonder how much more the next drop increase will affect LHE games. In So Cal its been a few years since several places increased their drops a buck all around.

Back when I first started playing 4/8 I think it was $3 & $1. Now its been $4 & $1 for several years. 8/16 was $4 & $1 and now its $5 & $1. 20/40 is $5 & $1. What happens when its bumped up another buck all around? Peeps are still obviously going to play. They will whine some about the increase but they will still go out and play cause they can come up with a few hundy for rec purposes

PS. Lestat really like your posts. Wish you'd post more. Good to hear from a live one(live pro that is)that has been at it for some time.

1) in the last 5 years I've logged about 1000/hr. yr. @ Commerce/HG/some LV. Most of it sitting @ 4/8 LHE. I've kept good stats.
2) After the last $1 bump in the CA rake, it was just like the casino sending me a bill for an extra $100/month. After expenses, this was about 1/2 of my net total wins in all games (including O/8 where I was never a winning player.)
3) Running bad does happen. Usually 1 100-200BB downswing per year over a 60-90 day period. And that always has an impact on that year's average win rate. To have a serious downswing AND still wind up 1/BB/hr.+ after a full year would be a wow. My results tend to run in the .1-.45/BB/hr. zones.
4) I'm buddies with Frond and albacorela. I've met Jesse, etc. Lots of solid input. I agree with the overall view, that at least in CA with its upfront rake structure, 4/8 is a breakeven game for above average players. I can't identify a single player that I see consistently taking more off a 4/8 table than he puts in.
5) IMO, if CA were to bump the rake one more time @ 4/8, I'd have to give it up as unbeatable even though I enjoy that level as an experienced recreational gambler.

I toke a 1 and stiff on small pots, and seem to get along fine with dealers. With drops now 5and 6 (including jackpots) the drag is just too high. As a regular player just your being there helps games get started and keep going and hence keep the dealers employed. Over toking annoys me when dealers allow it from new players..(gratefully toking 3,4 from a skinny pot).... the net result is the person goes broke faster and has an less than satisfying experience and may not return.. it short sighted..... Also if a dealer is in a game and over toking just to make the rest of us feel guilty.. I figure he just paid my tokes for me..

The word toke tilts me. Just like cheques.

i agree with others that a one cheque toke is sufficient, as long as that's a $1 cheque. a one cheque toke in any other denomination is too much.

What do Czechs toke?