Yeah, I made myself look stupid there. Oh well.

How about this? Anyone with math skiils can estimate my y-axis based on the biggest downswing numbers I just quoted since its pretty obvious where that was on the graph.

An easier way is that I think you recently posted in one of your threads a specific winrate of N BB's/hour over 2k hours... pretty sure that was you...

Actually looking again, $2100 of the $5400 was 5/10 so it was actually 8.7 buy ins.

Edit: Disregard all of this. I have to go back and look again. My memory must've blocked out some of the downswing because its a bit more than the $5400 I listed. I have a pic on my phone of a screen shot I took of my app a while back that shows -$5427 over 76 hrs for a lovely win rate of a little over -$71/hr. I thought I had captured the downswing for posterity but I guess I missed some of it when I took that screen shot. Its safe to say my biggest down swing was somewhere in the 10 buy in range. I would say about 3 of those buy ins were bad play.

I have a bankroll question!

I have $800...

My 1/2 game is $200 max. Well its 2/1/2 actually. Mandatory $2 on the button.

So anyways, do I use it as 4 $200 buyins or 8 $100 buyins? The 8 100s would reduce variance but if I stack people I'm also making much less.

I would go something in the middle, around 140$ or 150$ each buyin. 100$ is just too short, and will leave you with very little wiggleroom starting with only 50 big blinds.

Something to keep in mind though, is what youre saying about short buyin reducing variance is truly a double edged sword. Yes, when you do find yourself in allin for stacks situations you will "only" lose the 100$ you bought in for, but on the other hand you will end up in stackoff territory SPR way more often compared to if you bought in for 200$.

My best bet for grinding up from that small of a bankroll is to buyin for 140$-150$, and basically nutpeddle to try and spin up your roll a little bit. Lock up wins when you can. Ive grinded up my roll from scratch several times due to a variaty of life reasons, and ive used this approach with success each time.

Buy in for $200 a pop.

It's all relative.

Somebody who plays tight isn't going to make heeps with them, whereas somebody who constantly 3bet/4bets is going to be able to get 400bb's out of someone when they have QQ/JJ/AK fairly often [when you have AA/KK]

Depends on how good you are at each stack depth.

I would generally play shorter if you have so little money (unless easily replenishable I guess) and reduce your RoR significantly.

This is only if you know how to play a shorter stack though. Peel less, but 3b more.

Had a pretty good April + May. If it wasn't for that huge 5/10 loss I'd be really crushing. That 5/10 game was ****ing amazing too

I'm really not a fan of playing live cash with under 100bb. You just are handicapping yourself, and limiting your own profitability.

If the roll will be replenished at some point I would just buy in full.

Going bust (or having to make tight folds for BRM reasons because you're too deep) also limits your profitability.

Finally fired up my actual analysis scripts (Matlab junkie due to work) to look at my recent results in detail.

Year has been pretty marginal so far with a big old +$377.50 over 246.6 hours. Total waste of time.

But then I starting splitting things apart and feel a little better.

+$1212.5 over 158.6 hours playing $1/2 NLHE. Only $7.65/hr, but I did have two annoying -$500 sessions in there where every big pot went the wrong way.

-$835 over 88.4 hours playing "other" games, which is mostly RxR or straight PLO.

LOL sample sizes for both but the NLHE is at least in line with the last 1000 or so hours (bit lower), and my overall trend for about 650 hours of assorted "other" games is also pretty negative. Really wish my local home games would play more NLHE and less RxR as it's much more convenient than driving to a casino.

After a horrendous start to 2017, I'm on a nice little 1,091bb upswing over the past 98 hours in my 1/3 NL game. Still on pace for my second worst year ever, but at least I'm a little bit more in the ballpark where I at least have a chance at booking a reasonable result by the end.

Ever since implementing my new uber nit style I haven't lost a session, but I'll fully admit I'm probably just running well in the big pots that matter.

GubernitG

So far so good, I just suck at putting in the proper time. 75% 1/2, 25% 2/4, and a couple 1/3. Probably won a couple k before I started recording stats.

That is one ugly graph. Why the hell is it in 3D?

Not bad results for a small 200 hour sample though.

Thank you for posting stuff like this. Seriously. It's helpful to people who are bombarded with confirmation bias.

Personally I'm not sure I can beat 2/5 anymore. It was a good run I guess.

There are often times I'll be sitting at my 1/3 NL table and ask myself whether I think I can outrun the rake at this table. Sometimes my answer is no, and so I'll just uber nit it up until I can get a table change or the table improves / a spot or two is introduced.

Gsuchafinelinebetweenwinningandlosing,imoG

Yea. It's the engineer that values more data over "correct" data I guess.

I'm fairly sure that I just still suck at PLO. Particularly in marginal spots when the game is juicy and I'm not sure how wide I should be opening or calling. I'm also really under-rolled for it and shy away from repeatedly shoveling money into the pot in near coin flip situations. That and just from watching the game play out around me, I'm pretty sure that the sample size needed to determine your real ability in a PLO game is significantly larger than NLHE ... and I'm no where near that.

My $1/2 NLHE results are closer to $15/hr over the last 2k hours of so and fairly respectable IMO. Especially having played for about 2 years or so on a perpetually short roll due to life constraints requiring 'poker' money.

Is this because you feel your games have gotten a lot tougher or just general run bad?

I've spoken on this alot but as someone who has played Florida poker since 2011, games have gotten "more educated"

I don't really want to use the word "tougher" because below 5/10 (which i rarely play) I am never really put in challenging spots (but plenty of ******ed spots, which are rarely discussed on here and should be our key focus imo)

So like in 2011 if someone flopped top pair any kicker you were guaranteed stacking them. People only 3bet QQ+. They used horrendous sizing in any bet they made.

There were also more action/whale players...I recall villains playing blind being a somewhat normal occurrence, whereas these days it would really be something.

The higher stakes games have definitely dried up / become more challenging. There are kids that have a clue and even if they don't they are less afraid of clicking buttons, which is still hard to play against. The action guys moved on to the next shiny thing.

So yea, people are "less bad". I wouldn't call it tougher but at the end of the day my win rate in 2011 will never be reached again imo, and I didn't have a clue then.

I think my downswing (pretty bad) is a combination of experimentation (smaller sizing, wider range), not adjusting correctly to very good games in a new market (huge multiway pots, no fold equity), actual run bad (I've glimpsed the abyss), and entitlement tilt.

Probably $2/5 PLO if my market is any indication.

There are some really great giraffes in this thread. Figured I'd knock the average quality down a few pegs. Here are my lifetime live cash results starting from late 2013. 72% 1-3, 27% 1-2, 1% 2-5. 1-3 and 1-2 are both $100-$300. I play basically exclusively on Friday nights and Saturday nights.





The harshest downswing in this history was a 130 hour stretch losing $4,500 to close out 2016. I'm (hopefully) just about out of a 500 hour break-even stretch. I have no illusions that I was playing optimally during that stretch.

I'm not sure if I've been winning more this year because I've been spending more time on the game away from the table, or if I've been spending more time on the game away from the table because I've been winning. Probably a little bit of both.

^^^^

Congrats on the overall results, imo (which likely puts you in the very few percentile within your room).

GgoodluckG

Your graph looks exactly like mine fwiw. Your 1200-1600 stretch is my 1500-2000. I also play way less poker when I'm winning.

I will never have meaningful PLo stats. It doesn't help that my short term results have been terrible. I'm not good enough yet to be able to tell if I made a good or bad play vs. a PLO range or if it was just good or bad vs. a specific tabled hand. I've got the rest of the summer to consider it. I likely won't get many hours in for a while.