Naw, I had moved between the front 3 tables throughout the night so if you were at the others I had not played with you.

don't stress over the schedule I think you should embrace it, is it possible you could add a extra 5-10k in a month of hammering down on all the demand for skilled dealers, add that to life roll,
I love the videos, makes me wish I was there.

I have heard dealers at my casino say they can make 10k amonth during the series,
not sure if still possible or not

Getting close to 6k subscribers now. Number is at 5,869.

Why Troop or (anyone for that matter) should play above 1/2-3...

The true cost of live poker:

$4 rake + tokes = $16/hr avg per player
$5 rake + tokes = $18/hr avg per player
$6 rake + tokes = $20/hr avg per player

To break even,, you must be (x)bb/hr better than the avg of your competition prerake (if played in a vacuum i.e. no rake) to offset the cost of live poker + tips:

Level...........$16...........$18...........$20... .....
1/2..............8bb/hr. 9bb/hr. 10bb/hr
1/3..............5.3bb/hr 6bb/hr. 6.66bb/hr
2/5..............3.2bb/hr 3.6bb/hr. 4bb/hr
5/10............1.6bb/hr 1.8bb/hr. 2bb/hr

When table selecting, you should have an idea of what you should win long term in bb/hr vs the competition before rake and toke considerations are applied.

In today's poker world, its doubtful anyone has such a skill advantage to claim they are 8+bb/hr better than the avg of the other 9 players at the table.

This makes 1/2 unbeatable.

However, I do believe 6bb/hr is achievable for the very best players even as the skill gap continues to narrow.

Unfortunately, this too makes 1/3 unbeatable long-term in today's environment.

Rake increases and overall tougher competition over the past 15 years have made it so that only playing 2/5+ is profitable for live players.

Hope this helps!

How many hands per hour are you basing this on? Assuming 10 handed, it seems that if you pay $4 rake you get 40 hands per hour?

If you're playing 10 handed you'd probably get maybe 30 hands per hour. I've logged 1 hour of hand histories live on 5 separate occasions playing 9 handed and I always got 35 hands per hour on the dot, which is in line with what most people state as the average.

pwo85 is right, 1/3 NLHE is nothing more than a stomping ground for poker, unless you live with 3 roomates, have no car payment, and only need about $1000/month to survive.

Trooper took a shot at 2/5 which was dangerous and hopefully not a sign of chasing losses, but that win he locked up also served as an example of why he needs to build a roll and move up. At 2/5 you dont have to hit a homerun every single time you play in order to afford your cost of living. You will make enough money at this limit to tolerate swings, have average sessions, breakeven stretches, and the occasional homerun to offset everything else and still make an easy $4k net every month if not more. 4k/month will afford you a nice 1 bedroom apartment, car payment, plenty of food, healthy lifestyle etc. You will probably have to fudge on your taxes a little though.

I dont think he should quit the vlog since that kind of exposure has proven to explode given the right circumstances. It might not be worth anything today, but tomorrow it could make him rich, just depends what inevitably happens with it.

I do think he should quit playing 1/3 immediately, put in more hours dealing or find a job that pays better (dont dealers make something like 50k/year? Thats not bad). Probably get out of the Extended Stay hotel thing as I imagine thats not really very cost effective. Dump the Veloster since thats probably costing him $300/month, and get a roommate in a decent area so he can split expenses. In 6 months dealing, assuming he's making 50k roughly, he should be able to save up a good 5k+ and start taking shots at 2/5. As soon as his roll is up to 10k he can quit dealing for awhile and make another go at poker. Now that he's an established dealer it sounds like he can always fall back on that until he solidifies himself at playing professionally.

You make good points Javi. But Trooper moving out of DM will cost him a few thousand. Security deposit plus purchasing furniture. It made sense at the beginning to live in an extended stay motel in case things didn't work out. 2 years down the line though with a full time job he owes it to himself to make things more comfortable. While I applaud his Spartan lifestyle, the temporary financial setback for the increased comfort and security is well worth the wait on moving up to 2/5. Given the fact summer is creeping up and he won't be walking to the Nugget (and they don't offer 2/5) gtfo of downtown. Also if he vlogs regularly he won't have to spend all the time commuting back and forth to another location to upload and whatnot. Plus it's evident having a laundry unit within an apartment could save him at least 7 hours at a time.

I think the 1/3 at the Wynn is probably a better game then the 2/5 B.

2/5 at the bell has always been a great game Troop... I really had been wondering why you never have played that game.

I agree that the 1/3 wynn game and the 2/5 Bell game have a lot of similarities... yet the Bell gets more tables going on an ongoing basis imho. Both games are great, and I think you should really look into the MGM 2/5 game on busy weekends... that game has a normal crew that plays it always, they are exploitable.

I see 2 issues with this that don't seem to jive. There are players that make over 10bbs/hr even with rake. There are players that make a living playing just 1/2.

No there aren't. Or, if you insist there are, think of a normal distribution (bell curve). Standard Deviation and Laws of Large Numbers. Pointing at somebody who does this is anecdotal. But does prove it can be done. However, it doesn't weaken the argument behind pwo85's statement. On the surface your statement appears strong. The devil is in the details.

No there aren't. Nobody who can beat 1/2 plays 1/2. Why would they? You think there are people making a living playing 1/2 but can't beat 2/5? Or they make a living at 1/2 but don't want to play 2/5? Where's the logic?

Also, what do you know about and how well do you know these players who make a living at 1/2?

You're pointing at things that are akin to somebody saying roulette is beatable because they watched somebody make a killing at the roulette wheel last night.

One just posted his results in the winrates thread recently. Perhaps you should read the winrates thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...nances-771192/

Heck, in the first post it says: "Harrington wrote that if you are beating a live game for 10BB/hr, you're crushing it. "

Only a small percentage of players will make this much, but even so I personally know close to a dozen players from coast to coast that make 10bbs+/hr. Heck, Running Uphill had a bet that he could avg $105/hr at 2/5 over a few month period. You think someone that can't beat the game for more than 10bbs an hour would make that bet? (BTW, he ended up barely losing the bet)

It essentially disproves his statement.

There are several reasons. 1 would be bankroll (cost of degeneracy also plays a roll in that). Another would be that they don't want to take shots and perhaps haven't had success taking shots at 2/5 (perhaps don't have the luxury of taking shots). A third reason is that some locations don't spread 2/5 much if ever. A fourth reason would be that they prefer the style of play at 1/2 and it's a game they have solved.

I recall Butterfly Symmetry was asked many times for his reasons for playing 1/2 in his thread and he addressed that.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...-here-1283096/

I don't and I intend to keep it that way.

Except that there are players that have been making a living from 1/2 for years.

most people "making a living" at 1/2 play 1/2 to make some income on the side. anybody making a living purely by playing 1/2 is literally throwing money away by not playing 2/5.

If by a living you mean a 20 something in a wayward point in life looking to see who they are with minimal bills, then I agree they are making a living lmfao.

Nobody living a typical lifestyle could do it at 1/2.

I don't know many full time poker players that live a typical lifestyle. The Trooper certainly doesn't live a typical lifestyle and I know I would never want a typical lifestyle either. All of the full time 1/2 players i know are older (ie late 30s, mid 40s)

Here is where Butterfly Symmetry finished on his 1/2 challenge: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1204

Cliffs - he only played ~25hrs per week (less than he intended), made ~$26/hr and his yearly cash game earnings were $35k. 90% of his play came at Horseshoe Indiana's 1/2 game.

It's simple really, walk into any casino and look at the 1/3 players. Virtually all of them are probably net losers. I wouldnt be surprised if your buddy here was the one single winner in the entire room at 1/3 on any given night.

Now head over to the 2/5 area, what do you see? Less losers, and more winners. Still probably 70-80% losers overall, but probably 10-20x more winners than at 1/3.

Finally step over to 5/T, now what do you see? 8/10 are winning players. See what's happening here? On average there should be no expectation to make a living at 1/3 live any more than there is to make a living at NL10 online. Sure it can be done, but it's so far from standard it should be looked at as a fluke when it happens. There is no merit to pointing at the one guy you know who makes a living at the lowest stakes possible.

8 out of ten 5/T players are winners? LoL, not in any of the 5/T games I've played in.

The fact that there are few winners doesn't mean it's harder to win at 1/3. I would conclude it means it's easier to win at 1/3 because the competition sucks. Go sit at any 1/3 table and chances are high that every single opponent plays poorly.

I like how you're just pulling numbers out of your ass in response to a guy who provided links and mentioned several proven winners.

Let me guess, you're a losing player at 1/2-1/3?

And Michael Jordan could have played pickup bball with the elementary kids after school if he wanted for an easy win. No winning player who can play at 2/5 would ever subject themselves to 1/2, it would be a pointless waste of time. Thats not to say that everyone plays at their highest level. I could see someone who beats 25/50 choosing to play 5/10 instead because it's easier and the money is "good enough" for them. But at 1/2? There's just no incentive. Anyone who can beat 1/2 can beat 2/5, so the only natural thing to do is play 2/5. The skill threshold between the two is close enough.

several out of a sea of thousands. I can find a guy who beats roulette too if I have to. Using those few players doesnt serve any value to someone looking to play professionally. We want large samples from a large pool of players. 2/5 is the minimum level to be at if you want to make a living and support yourself without any outside assistance (roommates, handouts, etc)

Lol @ somebody posting less than 2500-3000 sessions stating they are longterm winners. That butterfly guy has only 10% of that. Any1 can run good over a 300 session period.

I don't know why you people keep debating whether or not 1/2NL is beatable. Who gives a ****.

As it pertains to THIS thread the only thing the data proves is that Trooper is not a winner in these games over the course of 1-2 years (prob 500+ sessions).

Exactly. You don't need anywhere near a Michael Jordan to crush that game though. I just don't agree with reasoning like " Look at all the elementary school kids that lose. The game is unbeatable!"