OK...so everyone who joined in July 2021 is a troll?

Not only are you behaving like an utter jerk, you're not even making any sense.

Which is why it makes sense to take a somewhat mathematical approach. The typical SD for 100BB deep live NLH seems to be about 60 BB/h. It's not hard to figure out how many hours you plan to play. You can estimate your hourly to be whatever you want - 10BB/h is a pretty good player for the stakes for example. Then it's easy to multiply your hourly by the # of hours and get an expected result aka expected mean. Then multiply the SD by the square root of the number of hours, and that's your SD for the trip. Figure most of your results will be within plus or minus 2 SDs of the expected mean.

Anyone that can pass 8th grade algebra can figure this out.

It’s cool that you passed algebra, but statistics is a little different. You’re not using standard deviation correctly. It’s not a unit of measurement you can add or multiply. It’s specific to the time period you measured it. Variance calculators have to run Monte Carlo simulations in order to look at longer periods of time.

Most of your posts are snide remarks when your thinking is challenged. Literally, every single reply that you've gotten to any of your posts that doesn't align with your thinking, you've attacked.

Why do you continue to refer to playing with proper aggression as being manly? Could it be that's why you struggle to win at a significant clip? And because you struggle, you reach the conclusion that everyone struggles in Vegas games outside of prime time weekend games.

I've never said that an $1 to $2 rake for the promo doesn't matter. I'm saying of all the things that contribute to your win rate, if you have one, it's down on the list. It might not be in the top three as factors. You seem to think that promo rake is what makes or breaks whether a game is beatable.

I never said 77 should be played like AA. I'm saying that it should be played, either as a limp or a raise. Your logic behind just open folding it is why you struggle. Quit putting words in my mouth and making wild assumptions.

For someone who is seems to be quite intelligent, you sure understand good poker strategy very poorly. It's a clear sign of someone who thinks they're smarter than they really are and as such, is incapable of questioning their own logic as correct. You are the definition of a bad reg.

Yes, standard deviation isn't cumulative or multiplicative. But he seemed to be very aggressive in stating that he knew what he was talking about, even though when I asked him to show how he had derived his numbers, he weaseled away.

It's kind of silly to try to precisely quantify the OP's risk anyway without knowing the many variables involved, which include far more than just his skill level (and that variable is very hard to quantify).

Even if you totally ignore his overhead (living expenses, etc.), the OP could easily go broke playing 2/5. The risk would be much less playing 1/2 or 1/3. And since his goal seems to be to play, not to crush Vegas, he should go for the less risky options if he wants to stay in Vegas for two months.

I give up. You win. Your penis is bigger. Invest your millions in Vegas poker winnings wisely.

(And speaking of "wild assumptions"--I do far better than just "struggle." But I have a sneaking suspicion that YOU regularly get pounded through the floor.)

Once again, when someone questions your thinking as incorrect, you equate it to manhood.

Struggle is a subjective term. Let's just say how you approach poker is suboptimal. You surely win but it's nowhere close to the high end hourly rate one can win at 1-2 or 1-3 nl. It's not hard to gauge your approximate hourly by how risk averse you are and how much you pass up marginal +EV spots over and over again.

Poker is the great equalizer. You play your strategy. I play mine. The better player will win more long term regardless of the size of their manhood or ego. That's what I love about poker. It doesn't matter what you or I think.

I think you got that quote quite wrong.
"If you can beat 1/3 or 2/5 regularly in your home casino on a consistent basis, then you can beat the vegas games with ease."

Another pro tip: pocket some of those poker chips and sell them on eBay. I’ve been amazed at what some have been selling for recently.

Guy just disses the entire populations of Florida and Texas and then in his next post calls another poster childish, stupid and rude. Troll, indeed.

Wrong.

The need for a Monte Carlo sim arises to answer the question of how low your lowest point might go. You can calculate the end point as described. There is some value in a sim (which if you review I already mentioned) but it's not needed in this case since the BR is huge relative to the SD.

Simply put many of you are mathematical ignorants. it explains a lot about why the games are so easy at all stakes

I guess you don't understand that absolute, utter, complete maximization of EV isn't the sole consideration. I believe I made the analogy that a casino could maximize its EV by accepting bets of up to $1,000,000. But it doesn't. Why not?

I'll leave you to figure that out.

Yep. You're an internet child, and everyone who makes posts that you don't like is a "troll." Same old same old. Nothing new here.

I don't make posts the sole content of which are to attack another poster and call him a troll etc. etc. blah blah. But that appears to be the norm in this particular internet sandbox.

So, OK, I'm in. You're a troll. Troll troll troll troll troll. Nyahh!

Ooh, I feel so validated now!

Heh heh heh. It's a classic trope: the hometown hero wins big at his hometown game with Clem Cornpone and Cowboy Bob, and then he decides to git on his horse and ride to Vegas and show all those folks who's boss. The hero is then had for lunch.

Ratio of people who think (or brag) they can beat the Vegas games to those who actually can: 10,000:1.

I don't know. Maybe it's 10k to 1 of total population. But if someone is posting here, and trying to improve their game, it's extremely likely they can beat low stakes in Vegas.

For example, I've tracked my play for the last 8 years. I'm an average player at best, who has read a few books, and played casually.

If I filter to Las Vegas casinos only, I have 318 hours tracked (I know, not very much), and I'm a small winner. (2BB-ish)

For a LOT of those Vegas sessions, I would say I was way worse than I am now.

With the data I have, I think the average 2+2 poster beats low limit Vegas games.

ive been on the scene a real long time (not even close to a barg). This is definitely not the case.

That's just super surprising to me.

rake and toke is in fact a beast. Couple that with lack of discipline, boredom, and entitlement. Then mix in some booze, some tilt and winning actually becomes kind of hard.

beating llsnl aint rocket science. I am living proof of that. But actually achieving a +w/r is very elusive to most players including those on 2p2

Studying and improving is hard work. Like practicing an instrument. Think about how many try and learn guitar. Tons and tons. Most suck and quit. Cuz work (practice) generally aint fun and most take the path of least resistance which leads no no improvement

Yeah, we have several people here who say that Vegas low-limit games are easy to beat, that anyone who can't lacks manhood, that rake and jackpot drop don't really matter and should be largely disregarded, that every single hand that isn't two blank cards should be played because we can outsmart 'em all, etc. etc. etc. belch grunt snort.

I work at my game. Constantly. I'm a modest winner over the past 5+ years or so, and it hasn't been easy. One slip, one leak, and you drop below breakeven. It's hard work, it's difficult, and it requires unrelenting attention to what you're doing.

It’s more accurate to call you a hypocrite. You like that term better?

I suspect the median 2+2 player is only a hair better than the median player and is probably a slight loser due to rake.

2+2 has an unusual density of highly competent medium and high stakes players however that can easily crush low stakes games if it was made worth their time to do so.

Since OP has disappeared into the ether we haven't managed to get any info on how good he might be. So this is probably a waste of time.

Maybe one day, you'll learn the importance of blockers and ranges and taking as many small edges as you can instead of passing up every marginal spot. There's a reason you're a modest winner by your own admission and it's not that extra $1-$2 in promo drop every hand you win, which btw gets returned to you as you hit whatever promo is active. Here's another tip. Some promos are better than others, for getting back what you put in and game quality.

The level of toughness of Vegas cash games is completely subjective. Therefore there is no right or wrong answer. If someone has a different opinion than you on a subjective matter it does not make them wrong it just means they have a different opinion.

The only way to truly know if you will find the games in Vegas to be easy, tough or somewhere in between is to play in the games yourself.

There are different levels of poker playing ability. Therefore, some will be able to beat the games consistently for a high rate and some will not.

Obviously, not all promos are created equal. But they ALL cost the players, except in the (very rare) case wherein all money is returned. You should know this. Casino cardrooms retain a percentage. Therefore, that portion of the jackpot drop that isn't returned is disguised rake.

I already know the importance of blockers and ranges blah blah. That importance is minimal (and I'm aware that yea verily, thus do I blaspheme). But it's GREAT for sounding erudite on an internet forum.

I'm not "admitting" I'm a modest winner because I'm not responding to your implied accusation that I'm not as studly-skilled as you. Anyone who wins at all is doing pretty well, because they're overcoming the rake, jackpot drop, and toke expense, all of which you claim don't impact the stratospheric win rates of highly skilled cognoscenti like yourself but in fact, make it very difficult to win consistently. And that's anyone. Including you.

Maybe someday, you'll learn the importance of not chasing every 50.03% return opportunity. But with you, this really seems to be an ego issue, so I'll stop trying to debate it with you.

It's equally accurate, as in, just as inaccurate. But continue to fling feces from inside your monkey cage. It's the internet!