So I was watching some youtube videos and jonathan little had video not long ago about how to make 100k a year. The choices he put where something like this assuming playing 40 hours a week


10bb at 2/5nl cash

5bb at 5/10nl cash

$500 total buyin live mtt daily with 50% roi

$1000 daily online mtt daily with 30% roi

6 table 1/2nl 6 max with 8bb/100



He explained that the 5th option is clearly the toughest and said the easiest would be option 1 or 2. Then its between online mtt vs live mtt.


Now he is a very smart guy and has his own site etc. But does anyone think he is being way too lenient here? He did say the 6 table 1/2nl cash with 8bb/100 would be the hardest but is that even possible? He mentioned stars/partypoker that won't work.


But when he mentioned cash games, he mentioned how he has students he teach now that have winrates like that in live cash games. He talked about how 10 years ago he use to grind 5/10nl 12 hours a day everyday and had like a 13bb/hr winrate. Said it was like 6.5bb i believe for 10/20nl i believe. But of course that was a long time ago. I mean how many players full time get that type of winrate of 2/5nl at 10bb/hr. I can't imagine more than say 5 total players in a poker room at the max?



He mentioned how live mtt, you want to have 500 total buyins daily but how does one even do this live without traveling? Vegas mtt from what i see online and what i recall its basically daily 120 or 175 during weekdays unless you talk about those series events etc. That seems to be the most insane. But for online mtt players, are there guys that avg 1k in buyins daily and get 30% roi?



Is there anything wrong with some of his logic here? 5 basically doesn't even seem possible unless you are like one of the best players out there. Option 3 seems insane. I mean how many live mtt are out there playing full time and can make 100k/year? I dont think Allen Kessler can do that and all he plays is live mtt. I see lot of winning years and breakeven and losing years from live mtt easily. Then you also need a huge bankroll.


But of course most full time players are cash game players if they play live. Anyone could take a guess how many players play full time and avg 10bb/hr at 2/5nl and at least 5bb/hr at 5/10? From what i see on bravepokerlive, they don't even have much 5/10nl on weekdays. I do agree with his statement that the first 2 options has the least variance. I mean how many guys out there play 2/5nl full time for multiple years and make 100k? Can't be much it seems right?

The answer is don't make poker a career.

Make it an enjoyable side hobby that you hopefully make a little extra money at.

With the same effort it takes to win at those stakes at that winrate you can make much more learning to code (or probably several other things). In a job you also get benefits and the income is more or less guaranteed.

Good advice to give, when the economy is on the verge of recesssion.

For 2020 I’m at 41.5 bb/hr across, wait for it, 61.7 hrs. Good news is at $1/2 and full time hours I can clearly extrapolate this to ~$175k / year. Retirement here I come.

Hi All,

I started playing poker about a year ago and became fully obsessed with the game. I got in a lot of volume online over a 6 month period and was a break even/slightly winning player. Eventually, I got tired of grinding the micro stakes online and decided to cash out the $200 I had and take it to my local casino and play live.

I've won every single session that I've played live over the past month (19 sessions for a total of 70 hours) and turned my original $200 into $4,600.

As you can imagine, I've been thinking of moving up and taking a shot at $2/$5. I've read several books and understand GTO/solid conceptual poker, but never use it playing $1/$2 (because $1/$2 players constantly do dumb ****).

My original thought was to keep grinding until I have 20 buy ins ($6,000) but even then, I'm only adequately bankrolled for $1/$2 and would need to add another $6,000 to that in order to be adequately bankrolled for $2/$5.

So, my question is, has anyone ever taken a shot at $2/$5 without a proper bankroll and was successful? Or would you guys recommend I just keep doing what I'm doing until I'm properly bankrolled to move to $2/$5?

I probably already know the answer so maybe I'm just looking for validation and some encouragement to go for it. I don't know.

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

ryan most people here have taken shots, when i did it for a living there were times when I was had more in chips on the table than I had in total net worth

having said that, i'd stay at 1-2 for a while, but for your mental health and nothing to do with brm

I'm sure you know this, but your current win rate is not anywhere close to sustainable even if you're the best player in the world

knowing that and experiencing that are two different things though

there's going to be times you do everything perfectly and still lose your shirt - those times are likley just around the corner

if you move up after running so pure and then hit by the other side of variance it's going to emotionally wreck you and doubly so if it happens after you move up in stakes

wait until you have a couple losing sessions and then re-evaluate. if your bankroll is still >4k then take a shot or two when you see a soft lineup and are in a good place mentally and see how it goes

something a bit concerning though is your mentioned you had to withdraw 200 online to play live, if you're mixing your liferoll with your bankroll then you are putting yourself in serious jeopardy playing above 1/2 with that amount

goodluck

Reason #169 not go to pro: corona virus

Huh?

The ones who actually had the necessary skills to survive long term as a professional poker player are doing just fine, I can assure you of that.

If you do this thing right, it’s the ultimate job security. I remember being a young pro during the last crisis and feeling the same way when many of my peers with degrees were jobless.

The medium-low stakes, live “pros” you’re referring to, were always doomed long term.

It didn’t work for you. That’s almost uniformly a good thing, in the long run.

i wouldnt ask 2+2 players, most guys think u shouldnt play anything smaller than 2-5 NL what and are horrible with bankroll advice since they all have jobs which means they dont need bankrolls. but ive played poker as my only source of income for 30 yrs now, and im very uncomfortable playing $1-3 NL (only game here in town except for PLO) with under $20k. i still do it though because i have no other choice. ever since i threw away over 75% of my roll when i had over 20k back in october, its been a real struggle to even get back to 10k and im not there yet. most of it was lost in florida on blackjack and hotel costs, etc. none of it was lost at poker and ive always been a winning player from 30k on a bad year to about 50k on a good year. but i have no choice other than to play 1-3 and ive been out of the work force for 30 years. games here are still good. i won $517 yesterday and lost $287 the day before. still winning about 2k per month as broke as i am, and its mostly all going on rent or Uber. food, etc. very little is growing the bankroll back. at least im lucky enough to be in a state where there is 4 open poker rooms within 10 miles from home. and also lucky enough to be in a state most of the games are still 9 handed or at least 8 the only game is $1-3 NL or $1-3 PLO and surprisingly enough, most people buyin $1000. weird since when i was living in florida before i moved out of state, to get away from playing blackjack, (wanted to live in a state only poker was offered) people in florida bought in $50-200 none of these huge buyins in $1-3 were even permitted. and now im the shortstacker with $100. even $100 feels like way too much to buyin with a roll going back and forth only between 6k and 9k. for over 10 yrs my roll stayed above 13k. its hard emotionally to keep winning with this little money but somehow im doing it. so i would recommend u definitely shouldnt play 2-5 with so little if totally unemployed. this also means u like me, dont receive a regular monthly check from the govt.

imagine giving life lessons to people coming up using playing 1-3 and bankroll of 20k and 24k a year in earnings after 30 years as a metric of success

dunning kruger clearly survived covid19

Some good bankroll advice: Don't lose 75% of your bankroll playing black jack.

Don't play black jack with your bankroll.

Pro tip - dont take poker advice from a homeless unemployable gamboolin degen with no vehicle that does not know how to use paragraphs

Alright, guys. Let's remember the thread rules, please. I agree that TBC is not living the life most poker players are shooting for, but that doesn't mean we need to pile on.

You can just tell folks the context without judging.

Garick - not piling on. If some newb comes across this portion of the thread they need to be made aware that the TBC is not someone that should be listened to for advice.

Like I said, I have nothing against noting the TBC context for newbs. I just don't think we need to be adding the judgement part.

I laughed way too hard at this and feel bad now lullz

I thought that was every poker pro..

"Ultimate job security" Yeah, right, now that my local poker rooms have been shut down with no immediate prospect for re-opening, leaving experienced, successful live pros with no alternative but to go online to struggle with much tougher competition.

Are you out of your mind? Or just living in dreamland?

job security is the #1 reason why people choose to play poker professionally.

get wit it man

I have no background info or prior information, my response was fully based off his horrible and outright nonsense advice based on the absurd premise that only his advice matters and anyone playing 2-5+ with brm can only do so because they have a job

Neither. I’ve been playing poker as my sole source of income since 2007. I’m not pontificating here. I’m speaking from direct experience.

I said ultimate job security, IF you’re doing this professional poker thing right. If you’d like, I can go into details about what I mean exactly. But you might not be interested in hearing all that, idk?

And I also said, the pros that had been playing medium-low stakes, live only, were inevitably headed here one way or another in the long run. Can expand, if care?

Anyway, it’s clear you do at least realize there have been alternative ways to continue your job. There will always be people willing to gamble, in good times and bad. And actually this time, there was more than normal due to extraordinary circumstances (lockdown, govt money, and way less options of other forms of entertainment).

pretty sure for someone like me with no other alternatives to earn money (except to live off the taxpayers) **** i tried jobs in my late teens, id always lose them in under a week so i gave up, most of my followers consider me a success. most people with all my issues wouldve been out of action many years ago. i lived for over 20 years off the same $3000 starting roll and never went broke on it. at times i had it to 40+ and im still over 6k and made the $280 tonight for another weeks rent.

Hi all,

I have been playing online midstakes sngs & mtts for the last 5 years, beating them at a decent ROI. Due to legislation issues in my country i need to make the transition to live poker. Fortunately, They offer cash games in my city.

Looking for advice on whether the following rake structure is somewhat reasonable:

Blind strucutre 5/5, min buyin 250, max 1000

«No Flop, No Drop»
0 to 49 CHF No Comission
50 to199 CHF 5 CHF
200 to 499 CHF 10 CHF
500 to 999 CHF 20 CHF
above 1'000 CHF 25 CHF
Running Twice 10 CHF

Notice that this is a 9max game.

Also what kind of hourly can be expected in these kind of games?

Hoping to get some advice from experienced live cash game players.

Many thanks in advance.

So the percentage goes down as the pot size goes up, but the max is 25? That max is brutal, but the percentages aren't bad at all, with free tiny pots and 10% only in the smallest raked pots, with rake down to almost 2% at the break points.

As for winrates, that depends on a ton of factors, but the general rule of thumb is that if you are winning 10bbs/hour you're crushing.

I have kind of a weird question that I am hoping some of the more experienced players may be able to help me with. I have logged just over 400 hours currently between $1/$3NL and a $3-$10SL with about 65% of the being $3-$10 and am hoping to at least double the amount of hours I put in this next year. I had about 1000 hours logged on my old phone but lost all of my logs with my phone. I was at around 10BB on there as well but the majority of those logs were $3-$10SL.

So, here is my question. I currently have a win rate of just over 10BB per hour but I am primarily only able to play on Friday and Saturday due to work. I am thinking my win rate is skewed for this reason. I figure the weekday games will most likely have players that are a bit more solid than the Friday Saturday crowd. Could this be something that has significantly impacted my win rate, therfor possibly inaccurately depicting my skill set, or lack thereof. I am feeling fairly good about a 10BB/hr over about 1400 hours total but am just considering the accuracy of those numbers in relation to actual skill. Any insight anybody may be able to provide is very much appreciated.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Winrate by itself is not a reflection of skill. If you are the 9th best full-ring NLHE player in the world, but only ever play with the 8 other players that are better than you, you'll have a very poor win-rate but still be world class in terms of skill.

I'm extremely skeptical that you're winning $30/hour at a limit game where $10 is the max bet, but limit has lower variance than NL in terms of big blinds so if you measure that win-rate over 1400 hands then I think it should be decently accurate. Unfortunately it seems like you are keeping track of limit and NL together, which kind of messes up the data because they're drastically different games.

1400 hands is a decent sample but you could still easily be running hot with a significantly lower true win-rate.