You almost made an entire reply without talking ****. I was almost impressed.

I couldn't disagree with this more. First of all your win rate itself has zero effect on variance. Variance isn't about how many losing sessions or downswings you have, it's simply how far your actual results are from your expected results. How you play affects variance. So I'd say the 10bb winners who are borderline LAGs and put in appropriately timed big bluffs as well as shoving for thin value actually have MORE variance than the decent but ABC nit 5bb winners. Not to sound cocky, but I'm 100% sure that I'm at least a 7 bb/hr winner at 1/2 and 1/3. I went 7 weeks playing 250 hours without making any money. And that was during the WSOP when games were softest (supposedly). I feel like I should be 5k richer than I am now. It's sick. Don't tell me my income should be as certain as a nurse's. I know you're gonna make some smart ass remark that I will have to rebuttal so I'll just post my graph to save us that trouble (where's yours btw? For someone who talks so much **** you haven't posted a single one. Given your history of trolling, at this point in time I wouldn't even believe it's yours if you post one).



That's since May 2017 when I first played live poker full time during the summer.

+$7210 over 494.5 hours at 1/2 = $14.58/hr
+$14380 over 634.5 hours at 1/3 = $22.66/hr

I also won money at 2/5 and 5/5 but I won't post those hourlys cause the sample sizes are way too small. Even these samples are arguably too small to say anything other than I'm definitely a winning player. But when you sit down at any 1/2 and 1/3 and just feel that you are the best player 98% of the time based on the reads on your opponents, how many leaks they have compared to you, etc., you know what your win rate is.

My point here is even though that's how I honestly assess myself as a poker player, I still went through 250 hours of breakeven hell.

It's absolutely draining. Sitting there folding for hours is brutally boring. If I don't get enough sleep I start getting sleepy like I did in math or English class in high school. There's so much I'd rather be doing than being on my phone.

I'm confused. The 30% was tax, not salary adjustment due to lack of benefits.

For every 250 breakeven stretch there will be 250 hour stretches where you run above expectation.

Someone asked what kind of variance you can expect for a $40 an hour winner at 2/5. I play a conservative style so I would say my average breakeven stretches last 100 hours with downwings only dropping to 3.5k or so.

But as long as you are very +EV in the game, your variance will never be so soulcrushing that it actually affects your lifestyle. 1k or more breakeven stretches are unheard of in live low stakes NL unless you just aren't a winning player. That's why its a preferred game for people that treat it like a job. Very consistent income.

There's a lot of arguments against pro poker that I can understand. But "certainty equivalent" just isn't one of them. There are too many 80/20, 90/10 spots where you have your opponent crushed, that it won't take long for you to realize your expectation in the game.

As your opponents get better say at 5/10 plus, your edges won't be as fat, but at that point you should be so heavily rolled that higher variance should literally mean nothing to you.

What kind of standard deviation do you think a $40/hour winner at 2/5 can expect?

This is almost exactly what I did for several years when I was in grad school around 2010. I had a $25k/year stipend from my school, and supplemented this with around $15k/year playing poker in AC (about 500 hours a year at $30/hour). I was mostly playing 2/5 NL and 20/40 LHE.

The winrates thread has a formula to calculate. I haven't done it but would guess $100 an hour. A pretty meaningless stat if you ask me. But I guess you can use it to determine if someone plays LAG or TAG.

I know a bunch of guys that only have a 2 year degree and they're making way more than 30k a year starting. There's really no excuse for any "pro" to feel trapped in poker or forced into blue collar work. I understand that a lot of people think grad school+ is too much of a grind but two years is nothing.

That said, I also play with a guy that fits your description. He's blue collar but grinds poker on the side. He seems to have done alright, considerign his son is following in his footsteps.

Blue collar guys can make pretty decent money and there are always jobs available. I would still prefer poker over physical labor but these guys might only be competent enough to beat 1/2, so they can't quit their jobs. Not a bad side gig though, especially if its your hobby anyway.

If you know your win rate, standard deviation, and bankroll, you can calculate the probability of going broke. I feel like knowing that has some value to a poker player.

Body has some of the worst posts of all time. It's great that you're crushing it, keep doing you. But what is the long game for poker career wise? Don't get me wrong, being a good poker player is a valuable skill set... but living off the 2/5 level has gotta be tough/ not fun way to get by.

I've played in a bunch of rooms and imo winning anything above 5-6bb/hr long term isn't realistic.

If you enjoy poker living off of 2/5 is great. Well I shouldn't say great. Better than most alternatives for me I should say. It's seem like most winning players drop out because they can't handle the sheer boredom and nittiness of folding all night long. I've seen many winning players give a lot of money back by spewing. It sucks to be stuck $500 bucks and have to fold to a flop raise against a loose passive when you have aces, but its plays like that that will make or break you as a player.
Smart guys get big egos and want to win every hand. They always think players are making moves and playing back at them. They hate folding and having to be patient because they feel they are too good for that. That's why they view the game as such a torturous grind.

Btw, 10bb an hour is definitely attainable. Being capped to 5-6bb an hour is dead wrong. Even LordRiverRat will dispute that, and he hates poker ☺

As far as the long term of poker, its a big question mark, but it seems like the fish are too addicted to stop showing up year after year. I'm shocked so many losing players can get enjoyment out of losing money, but it works for me.

I agree. Sure if you're an ABC nit like most people in LLSNL, you will not win more than 6 bb/hr. But if you can move beyond that, 10 or even more is perfectly possible although your tilt control and long term stress management have to be supreme because your variance will be pretty up there. Mikestarr is a prime example. But dude please get off my balls. I know I'm good looking but your obsession with me is starting to get creepy.

I'm staring to think volume at 1/2 or 1/3 is overrated. I'm doing a challenge. 500 hours of 1/2. I force myself to stay in games to grind out these hours. Part of it is the idea that winning players should try to get more volume, part of it is just trying to get a sense of where I stack up.

After talking to a friend, I am starting to think at these levels I should be playing shorter sessions and be willing to hit and run. If I was trying to build a bankroll for 2/5, that is what I would do.

I'm sure I'm not as good as I think I am. However, I know I'm not the worst player in the games I play. That being said, I still feel like if I get up $300-$600 I am way more likely to lose a few hundred back than I am to win $300-$600 more. I have decent discipline, don't really tilt, and understand the basics of beating 1/2. However, I still make plenty of mistakes. Dumb ones, too.

I think if decent low stakes players (like myself, lol) were more willing to get up and leave after doubling up the games would be better for everyone. The bad players would have a better chance of winning, the bad players wouldn't be exposed to someone playing ABC for hours and setting an example of what winning players look like, and good players would increase their bankrolls while avoiding variance, tilt, boredom.

It seems like ego and entitlement contribute to me sitting in games longer. It's as if more hours guarantee me more money. Maybe volume is more important at 2/5 and 5/10. Maybe those games play real similar for a long period of time whereas a 1/2 game may have more changes to the makeup and style of play.

Maybe I just suck.

If this is true, you're a pretty significant outlier. I think you'll find it to be significantly higher when you run your numbers yourself.

60-80 bb/hr would be what most people can expect, and it's quasi-independent of winrate.

But you don'r have to take my word for it. If you do have a 20 bb/hr standard deviation, it should be obvious in your session logs. Tally the number of times you won or lost more than 1 SD. If it exceeds 34%, you're underestimating your variance. Tally the number of times you won or lost more than 2 SDs. If it exceeds 5%, you're underestimating variance.

There's no way anyone can sustain winning ~30bb/100 in live full ring no limit. The rake is also incredibly high coming somewhere around 3.5bb/hr or 10bb/100. The reality is most long term winners average around ~6bb/hr which is still a really high winrate in terms of bb/100.

The people who claim 10bb/hr is sustainable simply haven't played long enough. Another problem is misinterpreting the data. I think few very people (if any) are intentionally misleading or lying to people irt winrate discussions.

For example, great 2/5 games typically have a lot of $10 straddles. Grinders will see in the data sheets they're averaging $50/hr (10bb/hr for 2/5) but they completely ignore or forget the fact many of those hours were actually played at 5/10 (5bbhr for 5/10).

This is good but for reasons you haven't listed.

Survivorship bias is pretty severe in poker. People who run bad when they start playing tend to quit, even if they played well. So almost everyone playing poker overestimates their winrate and skill initially.

On top of that, people often play their best hours when they start. They are alert and play on weekends when more games and better games run. They can table change and seat change to make it easy to play. When they go pro (or start playing more), their best hours get diluted with their worst. They have to play on a Wednesday morning at the worst seat at a tough table with 13 straight lost coin flips from the past week running through their head. And then Jerry starts telling the stupid 52o story that you've heard ten times GOD DAMN IT JERRY SHUT THE **** UP.

It's there you find out what your winrate is really like.

$100/hour sounds way too low for 2/5 NL. I'd guess it's somewhere between $200-500. It's a useful stat to understand your confidence in your own win rate, or the likelihood that a downswing is due to variance vs. bad play.

Big facts.
BIG Facts.
BIG FACTS!

If straddling is super standard in your game then its fine to include that in your win rate, since you can expect it to keep happening month after month. Its what regs do, and part of your win rate is that you expect regs to spew chips. Why would you not include that? I have never heard that argument before.

I don't understand why you think hit and run is better. Its all one long session and the only way to make money is to keep applying your edge. The only factor you should be looking at is if the game is still good. If its good, then you are more likely to win more money than you are to lose money back.

This is so true. I wish I could wear a shirt that says "IDGAF about your bad beat stories" every time I play. If you guys ever see someone in Vegas wearing a custom made shirt that says that, you'll know who I am.

Barry Greenstein was on Chicago Joey's podcast a while ago and talked about this topic. Basically Barry's main point was to keep playing longer when you are winning. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, when you are winning money that means someone else is losing and possibly/probably on tilt to some degree. You want to stay playing in a game when the other player(s) are tilted.

Also you have to look at why you are winning. Are you just winning flips or are you playing better than these people. If you are playing better and just have a read on their style etc. then def. keep playing.

Barry had a story where he was staking someone and the guy he was staking quit playing after booking a win. Barry got really mad and refused to stake them anymore because they quit early trying to "lock in" a win. For Barry that is bad long term strategy.

On the other side of the coin when you are losing you are likely on tilt to some degree and chasing losses which is not a good time to keep playing. I strongly advocate setting a stop loss of 2-3 buyins per day.

The low-stakes poker ecosystem, IMO, seems currently to be polluted with tight economic conditions, higher costs of living, and Darwinian reduction of the fish population.

Perhaps they will come schooling back to my So Cal games one day, but all too often they are MIA.

Seems like a larger percentage of "improved" players are swarming around.

Since I am still a "small fry" (but hopefully not quite so fishy) maybe I am only now starting to notice it.

This makes sense to me.

I used to play way more on nights and weekends. However, during this challenge I have been mostly playing during the day with the older crowd. Part of it is my schedule, I can't sleep past 430am. Part of it is my patience and tolerance for the night games is not what it used to be. I'm hoping that I can start working in some sessions at more profitable times. Unfortunately, I'm probably gonna have to go back to wearing headphones to make this happen.

I do think I am way better for the first few hours than I am later. I have had a couple of 16+ hour sessions this year, tho. I felt pretty good about how I played those sessions. I felt like I had accomplished something by being able to stay sharp throughout.

I'm not sure I play that much worse as the session hits 5 or so hours, but I definitely think suckouts and bad beats hit me a lot harder. Probably need more work on my mental game than I think.

Suckouts hardly tilt me since I know I got my money in way good. It sucks when it happens but when you know you are +EV you feel just as confident in your game and your expected win rate.

I get much more tilted by my own mistakes, like when I incorrectly range an opponent and make a bad call where this guy only has the nuts or if I try to bluff a calling station by representing a flush and he stations me with top pair. Stuff like that kills me since its the equivalent to lighting money on fire.

Yeah, I listened to that one.

I'm not sure how to quantify it, but I really don't think the games I play in change a lot. Mon-Fri 9am-5pm you get what you get.

I am so much more confident when I have one the first few pots I play, tho. I think it makes me more aggressive which is good for me as I tend to be too passive in general. As a result, I have been topping off quickly and if I get into the game for 2 buy ins and can't get anything going I tend to leave.

What Barry said made sense and as a result I tried to play more when I had a big stack, felt good, and didn't think the table was horrible. In the past I would catch myself going into lockdown mode and know I should just leave if I wasn't gonna play as hard. I just haven't been able to turn $500 profit into $1000 profit this year.

I guess it has led to me questioning whether I have a BIG edge in the games I am playing, if variance/rake make 100-300 bb wins all I can hope for, or if my opponents are just adjusting to me better than I am adjusting to them.