Game condition from what it sounds should result in much higher win rate at 3/5.

Wow that's even worse he played AA like a bluff catcher smh. He can't call that river, turn call is questionable to.

I'm glad Alec torelli lost that hand he is a scammer and a cheater. Also he shoved K7o when tony g bet 5k blind. What a dick.

Our overlord, mason malmuth, just sat in at my table with position on me!

I haven't played in a game that shallow in a pretty long time, but I don't think your characterization of how much win-rates decrease as buy-ins are capped successively lower is accurate. I would think its going to be a smaller reduction than that.

$20/hr is an amount that a 1/2 player could win. So its probably not right to say that $20/hr is the most a 2/5- $200 player could win.

Especially if the games play like the typical 2/5 with many $25 raises that get 3-4 callers. That's going to leave you with tons of very profitable spots to have relatively shorter stacks.

CR him with your entire range!

I really don't ask players winrate's at the casino. But I think I'm one of the best in that game structure.

Only thing I have heard about the winrates in that structure is Bart said its hard to beat that game for 20$ an hour. He might be talking about the average player.

The main problem is you have people who buyin for 200$ and they don't play aggressive. They limp their stack away. So you have like 3/4 players under 200$. So your basically playing against 4/5 villains with decent stacks. A decent stack is 300+.

Very hard to beat that table dynamic for 50$ an hour and your a full time player.

Does that make sense?

Heh, does he know you?

PB you need to make up your mind. In one post you tell us that weak/passive games are the easiest games to beat for a good win-rate. In the next post you tell us your win-rate is worse than what people on here claim because your games are passive.

I didn't say anything about passive play being the reason why my winrate is not 50$. My whole point of the discussion is avg stack size and what you can buy in for. Basically the structure of the game.

Yeah I have big nights of 2500$+, but most nights I don't win a hand and I bought in 3 times. If the min buy was 500, noway my winrate wouldn't be 50+.

Edit: on average it takes me 3/4 hours to get to a 120bigs.

The shallower stack and straight 5 dollar drop will definitely skew the win rates down.

Max winrate is probably like 35 dollars an hour (total guess)

Finally a guy with some sense, Jack and seeUlater where tilting the **** out of me. Basically saying I'm trash when I know I'm a good player.

Now my baby momma tilting me, I'm watching the big game and she bugging me about buying weed. Lmao, I still have to buy weed and I quit,lol. What a joke man.

Jungleman has had Aces 5 times today and he still is losing. I can't believe he runs so good. He just flopped a set with aces, that's only happen one time in 3500 hours for me. **** man these guys are lucky rich bitches.

I'll ship you $20 on Merge if you slip him a 2+2 gang sign when one of you cashes out. Pics or it didn't happen.

Seems like you are certainly claiming that passive play is a factor in keeping your winrate down.

And I haven't seen anyone saying that shallower formats won't usually lower win-rates(although I don't think this is as universally true as people assume).

All I am saying is that you seem to be assuming there is a much larger effect than I think there is in reality.

Short buyins equal more variance simple as that.

Bah, I am telling you that 6bb/hr is way too low in such large room...

I can guarantee you that better players are crushing it for higher than 10bb, but then again I am sure they're moving up fast.

The big game is so sick!

WTF!?!? MM supposedly hates to play NL. Or are you screwing around at limit?

More than anything he needs to gain some intellectual honesty and stick to coming to conclusions after gathering facts.

How bout you guys tell me your winrates. The only guy in here making 50$ an hour is probably Sabr and that's because he is way over rolled for his game.

That doesn't even make any sense...

So you think to win big is to essentially run big bluffs and make big moves?

easy fold IMO

The fun thing about comparing live win rates is that they change before any sample can become reasonable.

Sigh, I'm slowly realizing how much I loved the fact that pure stats could settle tons of debates online.