It's not that I would be unhappy with sixty percent of my win rate, it's that I like poker

well, you would get your true winrate every single day, so the feedback between the quality of your play and the results is much much better. i LOVE poker study, after 4-5 years of playing poker i still gravitate towards poker thinking (chat, forums, ...) in my free time, but the poker playing itself has wore me out

by FAR the optimal way to treat poker from a moneymaking point of view is to steal stuff from the strategy of proven winners, try to emulate that and then get really good at making reads/applying it (ie watch videos, get coaching, learn to apply it really well - don't build your own game up from the ground floor)

i'd have a couple things i'd like to try that vary widely from the strategy all winners play atm but it's just irrational for me to try it out...

tbh everyone that loves poker as an intellectual exercise should be willing to pay a lot to be able to view what your true hourly rate was every hour you play. if you find some pride in dealing with variance, that's cool, but i'd rather not spend my days trying to brute force dealing with something we aren't made to deal with in very very fundamental ways. wins and losses get handled in different parts of your brain, and the losses hurt you more

if i didn't need the money i'd prob play poker 5 hours a week and think about it 30 hours a week. that's because of variance mainly (+ the fact that you have to bumhunt to make the most money rather than play regs all the time)

i also think people seriously underestimate how much variance makes or breaks a players career. i'm 99% sure there was some nl2k reg out there with at a certain point the exact same chance as jungleman to make it big say 1.5 years ago, same skill set and work ethic etc etc, but who ran superbad at a bad time in his career, lost confidence, needed a long time to rebuild and now is grinding nl1k with a 100k roll

/random rant

oh i know see you get the pixie magical handchart. i'd still do it though, at least for a couple of years. i would def take a job paying a 100k€ a year with the most boring no stress work possible for at least a couple of years

I agree. People don't realize how little 10% when considering added hours played, less tilt swongs etc

tilt is already accounted for; it is reflected in your current winrate

the only thing is more hours, but even that is dependent player to player

not really true imo. its not even so much the money as its just extremely frustrating to run wayyyy below EV and situationally bad over a large amount of hands. the general ups and downs arent really that bad when things are still going reasonably well for u. but when u go 200k+ hands of winning very little its much more frustrating that ur std 25bi DS.

Probably around 30%. I'd just play way more if I didn't have to deal with the stress.

yeah this sums me up perfecty. i love the intellectual nature of the game, inventing new strategies, testing them, solving hands etc. its just the stress of playing annoys me.

and yeah the variance is huge career wise like you say in the jungleman example