Though, even if I cut my winrate SEVEN TIMES from 14bb/100 to 2 bb/100, I'd still make ~$30,000 per year @2tabling zoom 25 days/8 hours a day. It is $2,500/month(+bonuses). In example, an average salary in average city in Russia is $250/month. TEN TIMES LESS.
Now I hope you understand, why there are alot of ukranian, hungarian, belo/russian players still grind out HUZOOM at even 0.5bb/100.

PS. and this is lowest rough estimates, because my real winrate at small stakes NL50+NL100 was around 19bb/100

I'm not sure about which site is the softest, but swcpoker only rakes 2.5%. If you play heads up or 3 handed on a 6max or 9max table then you get 50% rakeback every Sunday night in addition to normal rakeback, which is dependent on how much you have played there.

That's a very good winrate. Kudo's !

My estimate is 4 tabling a 200 h/h full time for a year. It's just to make the rake amount visible.

But i understand those figures where from 4 years and langer ago. Still very good of course ! But games now are a lot tougher. So even with the same rake in those day's you wouldn't make that money anymore.

But you make a good point about russia and eastern europe with much lower monthley income.

^^Sorry to disappoint you. Present results:

are you willing to bet money that I can't prove to you that I'm winning over significant sample on nl50hu?

Are you willing to bet money that you can provide a significant sample ?

http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

Even if you have a winrate of -1 BB/100 you have a 15% chance to have a winning sample after 2.000.000 hands !

loooooool nice angle-shoot

is 99,7% confidence that I'm a winning player enough for you? got that number from your variance calculator. If it's enough, we can come to an agreement on number you're willing to bet.

99,7% ?? What standard deviation did you use and how many hands did you play ?

120 std deviation (a bit higher than default, but I remember it being in that ballpark), 350k hands (only counting nl50 after rake change last year), 5,5bb/100 w/r (it's actually a bit higher). What you don't seem to understand is the fact that as winrates go higher than +-1bb/100, the confidence convergres to numbers very close to 100%.

Don't mean to interrupt you guys, you say 120 is higher than standard? My StdDev for over 500k hands is 233 for NL50, 210 for NL100, 193 for NL200, 163 for NL400 and so on @7ptbb/100. I believe that normal StdDev among solid-agro players can't be less than 150 nowadays, unless they keep their ranges tighter and not exploit opponents to the full, or unless you don't have good and bad runs as often.

no, I said 100 was default in the calculator, I think mine was around 120 (I'm on a tighter side), but might be higher, will take a look in hm later

Without rake your winrate was alsmost 21bb/100 hands.

With current rake you would have a winrate of 7bb/100 hands left.

For me i cant know if the games are still soft enough to have a 21bb/100 hands winrate without rake. (rake = 7 bb/100)

So in the old fishy days the fish would be losing 28bb/100 hands playing against purediesel.


Tutejszy, you would have got to have a winrate of 19,5bb/100 to keep 5,5bb/100. (-14 bb/100rake)
For me it is hard to grasp that players are losing 19,5bb/100 (your winnings+rake) + 14,5 bb (rake they pay) = 34bb/100

So the story is that others players have to be loosing at a rate of 34bb/100 for you to be able to win at a rate of 5,5bb/100.

That's even more then in the good old days. Can you understand that's hard for me to believe ?

PS the std deveation would be much higher then 120, 120 is for 6max. Purediesel had one of 200. With those numbers:

Probability of running at or above observed win rate (5.50 BB/100) over 350000 hands with a true win rate of 0.00 BB/100 (»?«) 5.1877%

Almost 95% sure to be a winning player :-) still good of course. For the average science paper that would be good enough.

PSPS I just realized you pay the most rake as the winning player. So other players loose less then i calculated above. I dont really know how to adjust for that. I dont know if it really changes the story that much.

Your math is somewhat off, but that's not the point. The point is Tutejszy IN FACT did log in 350k hands AFTER rake change and scored 5.5ptbb/100 WR. He is definitely beating this game nowadays.
Prior rake change I guestimate his WR was around 12bb/100 plus or minus depends on if he improved his game alot or not.

well, 95% sure he's beating this game nowadays. But ok, if it good enough for science its good enough for me.
But he has to be the exeption to the rule. How many players can you have losing like 27bb/100 hands all the time ?

I wonder what people would do if the goverment would take 72%-95% of their winnings like pokersites do with winning HU players ?

If I find a soft spot I'm surely not sharing it. Like a fisherman who finds his favorite spot reeling them in day after day. Does he go home and tell his other fisherman friends ? No way.

"Lets see if your around in 5 years" Phil Hellmuth