I think the problem isn't that the third best player is losing in any particular game, it's that the third best player in a given game will be the 5th best in another game or the worst in a different game


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great post. My stretch goal 10 years,ago or so was to make 3BB/100 live on Commerce 20/40+ on a 1 week trip during LAPC playing 14-18 hours a day and DeathDonkey or another well known expert said it's not possible in the long run to make over 1BB/100 live.

However, there are exceptions where the best of the best like Schneids, BK, OnTheRail, Unguarded, AvoidThe9to5, DeathDonkey, pros from Colorado, could be making or are making well over 1BB/100 if they play primarily soft games and game selected.

For example, my best friend whose a genius that finished all college math in highschool who plays recreationally once a week makes well over 1BB/100 based on last 2 years.

Live players don't usually talk about win rates in terms of BB/100, but I would say win rates over 1BB/100 would definitely be achievable in games like the 20/40 at Commerce.
Not as high as 3BB/100 though.

1 BB/hr is doable in most live 20 games imo. And they aren't generally getting out 100 hands an hour.

This sounds right.

Live WR's are completely bogus and worthless to extrapolate anyway. It's hard to get a meaningful sample size in one year (especially if playing in mix games where some of the games are slower moving), and then after several years when you may finally have a large enough sample size, the game's difficulty might be completely different from what it was at the start of the sample, your skill level might be substantially different, etc.

For example in the Canterbury 40/80 mix game, I crushed it in 2015 and 2016, now halfway through 2017 I'm barely up money on the year in it. Does that mean I was the best player alive in those two years? Pretty unlikely. But it also doesn't mean I suddenly forgot how to play the games and suck now. Additionally, the game itself has definitely changed from 2015 to now so it wouldn't be correct for me to just add up those results over that period of time (or go even further back and include 2014, 2013, etc), and proclaim "this must be my winrate in the game" based on xyz years of results in it.

These threads are full of misinformation.

No one is getting rich playing live LHE in 2017. I would venture the o/u on live only LHE players who have made over 100k in each of the past 3 years at 1.

Where exactly is the misinformation? I don't remember anyone talking about LHE being a path to riches.

I would say that the overall theme has been that LHE is in fact NOT a path to riches.

Thank you Schneids.

I would argue you were in 2015-2016, and still probably are in the 1% or were the best in terms of skill in regards to LHE and mix games

Not sure if anyone has done an in depth statistical analysis but my guess is that Variance / standard deviation for mix games, especially short handed is very large as it seemed to have been the case in 2017.

schneids is #1!!!!!1

People who grind 2k+ hours a year can def do it. Just very difficult to put in those hours on a year by year basis.

Also I would say it is difficult in general to get rich playing poker in 2017, not just LHE. Seems like if you could grind a lot of hours at 80-160 LHE and higher it is a better way to make $ compared to even many 200-400 mix games with tougher players, higher variance, and fewer dealt hands.

One ten hour session is easy, agreed. Four a week for 50 weeks a year, maybe not so much.

There was like a research paper with statisttical analysis of online NL online pros and the conclusion was that based on their sample of winning online pros, longer playing time equated to lower BB/100 on those sessions when playing over I think 4-6 hours.

You can argue this does not apply to live LHE but I think work life balance is more important in the long run to ensure you don't for example, burn out.

I've also always been a firm believer that what you earn as revenue should be diversified outside of poker from Trading, entrepreneurship, etc

these discussions always amuse me. Playing 2,000 hours a year is incredibly easy if its your job

For you it may be...for me it is not easy to do anything but sleep 2000 hours per year.

Then you are likely incredibly lazy, thats all there really is to it.

Thats fine, since everyone's motivation for playing poker is different. For me personally, I didn't choose this career path because it would allow me to sleep as much as possible.

I think it's fair to say that some people have it in them to work 40 hours a week, every week, and not be miserable, and some people don't. Most of those who are able to do that happily have a regular job and are happy doing it. For most people who are drawn to poker, at least part of the draw is that they aren't forced to do the grind of going to work every day, whether they feel like it or not. So it's silly to assume that most poker players can do this, and frankly it's pretty judgemental and rude to insult those who can't, because they have body chemistries or mental issues you can't relate to.
Kind of like the people who I'm sure judge you for "throwing your education away" by gambling for a living.

It seems like we are saying the same thing, basically we agree lots of poker players are lazy.

If you want to judge me for throwing away my education, you are welcome to since I did just that and it would be a pretty fair assessment.

I've always thought so too, but you're consistently the only professional that says so.

I guess that's part of what draws them to it. A career that allows them to be lazy.

"Poker players are notoriously lazy. If a poker player goes to the bank and the laundry in the same day, it's a huge achievement."

I've been working 40 hours a week AND playing poker 40 hours a week.
I'll happily trade for just 50 hours of poker per week.

I loved Mad Magazine as a kid. They did a feature on "mathematical formulas for life". I don't remember most of them, but I remember the formula for "Laziness":

The amount of work you avoid MINUS the amount of work you do to avoid the work you avoid.

Poker definitely attracts people with work ethic issues. The thing, though, is that it turns out that ALL human vocations reward work ethics.

80hrs?
Has long you fine life enjoyable, good for you .

In the long run, winning players are winning anywhere from 0.25BB to 1.5BB per hour. Probably a whole bunch of people between 0.25 and 0.99 per hour and very, very few between 1.0 and 1.5 per hour. I agree with schneids that live win rates are mostly meaningless.

Since August 2014:

0.21 BB/hr @ 4/8 (822 hours)

1.45 BB/hr @ 8/16 (2206 hours)

1.06 BB/hr @ 20/40+ (281 hours)