Final paragraph is nonsense. If you’re profitable at 100BB then obviously leaving when you’re deep can’t turn you into a losing player.

Good players shouldn’t need a stop loss. Strong mental game and being good at self evaluation are traits you need to be successful. I’ll leave if I feel I’m playing poorly for whatever reason but the only reason to set a stop loss would be if you have no self control and/or ability to self evaluate.

Stop win kinda makes sense for bankroll reasons but it’s more accurate to do a real time evaluation of the game. There’s clearly no need to get up with 20% of your roll on the table if effective stacks are much much less than that, or if the one or two players that do cover you are extremely ABC and on your right.

Kind of makes me chuckle when someone calls something non-sense while making a non-sensical statement.

Profitable at 100bb means exactly nothing...unless you always remain at 100bb.

If a good player doesn't need a stop loss, why would that same good player need a stop win?

Just think about it. If you have lost 20% of your BR, but somehow you are still playing good, you should still keep playing - according to you.

The same rationale applies if you have 20% of your roll on the table and you are still playing good, why would you stop playing? Worst case, you lose that 20%...which is the same exact BR scenario you would be in with a stop loss, except it's actually less than the 20% of your BR when you sat down.

But somehow you see the two scenarios as logically different.

Don't get me wrong, many poker players are non-logical and it's perfectly ok.

Are you the person who said you'll be a losing player if you quit early when you're up?

Absolutely everything I said is reasonable and if you can't see the value in my free advice, your loss. I'd be happy to elaborate to anybody who doesn't intentionally act like a dick.

How am I acting like a dick?

BR % matters when you are winning, but it doesn’t when you are losing?

Calling that out makes me a dick?

As in everything in poker, it depends. Some "decent winning players" are highly susceptible to tilt, some are not.

Some "decent winning players" are very aware of when they are having a bad day from bad play(we all have bad play days) and some can't recognize their bad play until it's too late (reviewing hands mentally on the drive home).

Short answer: stick to 2-3 BI's like you're currently doing.

Take some time and review days when you were down 2-3 buy ins but still continued. Did things improve? My stats show ~no improvement in these circumstances, with actual overall a continued decrease in my BB/hr stats compared to my average BB/hr. (I have averaged ~10BB/hr live over last 14 years with a 2 BI stop loss limit)

Hello all, used to be a breakeven/losing player until I started learning basic strategy/ learning GTO which is when I started using twoplustwo (thank you all for the feedback and help) and started actively listening to Solve4Why and other related podcasts. Have been studying sizing on every street and been briefly studying charts and spots and have made huge calls/folds where they seemed like the really mattered unlike prior to that when I was playing call with any two cards in my top 30-50% of range and play bingo.

Been keeping track of stats on PokerIncome app since I began a full-time job out of school in June 2020, and have officially just hit my first big milestone of 5 figures:

Current stats:
P/L:+10,754
$/hr: 33.00
$/Session: 104.41
Duration: 325 hrs, 51 min
Cashed: 65/103 (63%)

This is all of a mix between 1/3, 2/3, 2/5 and occasionally 5/5, where max buy-ins vary from 300, 500, 600 and 1000 depending on location.

Ever since this period began, I had always topped off to max stack after taking a hit as that has vastly improved my win rate.

Should being a winning player be sustainable for me? Even though I officially only have ~325 logged hours and approximately 3k in losses from prior to June 2020, where I was playing "bingo" instead of actual cards. Recently, just moved and have been actively playing in a 2/3 600 max game, which I feel very comfortable with where it is deep enough that big stacks in the lowest no-limit game are still on the table and lots of chips are able to flow into the pot.

Congrats on the results! It's likely you are a winner. Based on the sample size, I'd feel pretty confident saying you're break-even at worst. 325 hours could be less than 10k hands, which is why it's too early to get an idea of what your actual WR is (could be -50 cents/hr, could be $60/hr). Winning ~7bb/hr over 325 hours would be rare for someone playing a losing strategy though. If I had to spitball based of the description, I think someone who's starting to study the game and is seeing some early success is likely in the 0-4bb/hr range overall. So to answer your question, I think being a winning player at live-low stakes is sustainable. It's likely you're running pretty well too. I think it's too early to think about what your actual winrate is though because you're still learning. Your potential will only increase as you study more. If you're at 2bb/hr now, in a month or three you could hit 4bb/hr. Six months later, 6bb/hr, a year later 8bb/hr. (At least in terms of skill. Even crushers have hundreds of hours of break-even stretches) I'd just keep studying and playing, not worrying about immediate results. At 1k hrs you'll have a better idea of what this game is about. I'd also recommend ditching anything Berkey related. CLP or Upswing would be better sites to give your money to imo.

I know 18 sessions is ~nothing for live poker sample size, but I just went on an 11 session win streak followed by 7 losing sessions (and counting), plus bubbling a Big O tournament (in 3rd) that the top 2 chopped for 1k each. I know rationally this sample means nothing and I’m still up plenty from the winstreak, but I noticed yesterday it was starting to get to me and I was more stressed out at the table than enjoying myself. Will probably take a break for a couple weeks and see if I can reset.

Pretty much the same happened to me.
Just booked my 1st winning session again yesterday after several big losing sessions, it felt great.

It definitely got to me as well, took a few days off to reset but I wanted to get back into the action asap.

Another thing I did was just study more than usual.

I would suggest do whatever you are comfortable with doing (noting that this won't be the same for everyone).

Me, I pretty much always play to a certain time and very rarely leave before that time.

But if you feel you get tilty and don't play as well after losing some BIs, or if you feel a little uncomfortable with multiple BIs on the table, then no harm in setting win/loss limits for yourself.

The part about "quitting while you're up results in you eventually becoming a losing player" is complete garbage.

Ggoodluck!G

You're off to a great start, although over a very small sample size. But it sounds like you are taking a lot of steps to move forward from the previous poker version of yourself, so if you continue doing that there is a decent chance you'll have success moving forward.

Ggoodluck!G

This felt incredibly condescending/sarcastic. I can't think of any reason to say this other than to try to piss me off. Let me know if that's not what you meant.

As for my actual criticism of what you were saying...

They are logically different because mathematically (we're ignoring psychological factors) the prior events of losing 5 buyins don't matter at all when considering buying in for the 6th. It doesn't matter that you've lost 20% of your roll today when considering your next buy-in, which represents significantly less than 20% of your remaining roll. Buying in again is the same as starting a new session on a different day.

When you're up there are valid considerations from a risk management perspective when deciding whether or not to stay. Again, the past events of winning don't really matter, except that they led to you having 20% of your roll at risk. It's the same as buying in fresh for 20% of your roll if that were allowed.

Every decision needs to happen in isolation. The factors that matter are how much money you have in your stack/bankroll right now, not how much you've won or lost already, and the quality/condition of the game you're playing relative to your skill level.

I want to post my poker plan and get some advice on you all. Before Black Friday happened I took poker seriously playing 6 max cash games online and was a winner up through 100NL. After online sites shut down I just focused on my full time job as I recently graduated university and poker took a backseat. I had spurts though-out the past 10 years where I played live 1/3 and 2/5 and won but never took it as seriously as I once did. Once COVID happened I deposited some money online poker site and started studying again and worked my way up from 5NL --> 50NL. But last October I ended up withdrawing my whole BR of a few thousand.

As of a month ago I have caught the poker bug again and want to amp up my intensity around poker. I currently have a small amount of money online that I'm building up but my main focus will be live deep stack poker. My plan is to use online poker as practice and refine my play.

My long-term goal is to move up from 1/3 to 2/5 once I feel comfortable both financially and strategy wise. I feel like my fundamentals are good but optimized for 100-150BB play. The past two months I have been playing 1/3 at a local casino and buying in for the max of 200BB. I've played around 90 hours so far and am down around 200BB which is frustrating but I know I'm a winner at the game. My goal is to play once on the weekend between 8-12 hours and have it be a hobby/secondary source of income. I have to establish myself as a winner at 1/3 then use winnings + savings to fund my bankroll for 2/5.

Let me know if you have any thoughts on my plan or if there are any fellow weekend warriors out there. Through research it seems like 1000 hours is a the sample size to determine win rate, that will take me a couple years!

Bonus question: I know this is a loaded question. But since I'm in 90hr breakeven stretch, how long do these last for winning players (say 5BB/hr winners)?

Mr Drink,

I have a pretty strong online background and I transitioned to live after BF and win quite a bit. If you are playing 6 max online and are trying to play live it will turn you into a spew monkey. the dynamics are not there. Your skillset lies in the 100bb play range. I personally would humble up and only buy in for 100 bigs for your first several hundred hours.

my longest b/e stretch is a little over 200hrs - w/r 11bb/hr

I'm also a ~weekend warrior, typically putting in just ~550 hours per year at 1/3 NL. 6.87 bb/hr over 4960 hours (and holding, haven't played a hand since our rooms closed March 2020 and they've yet to re-open).

1000 hours might not mean as much as you think. My best 1000+ hour stretch is a full 3x better than my worse 1000+ hour stretch. This may also have something to do with only getting in ~550 hours per year, where your game/pool/conditions/etc. will evolve over the years and this will be reflected (eventually) in your results.

I quickly eyeballed my giraffe for what looked like my worst breakeven stretches. Most of these were probably going into a downswing and then digging out, but some are just stretches of banging my head into the felt.

$405 over 296 hours
$480 over 243 hours
$500 over 203 hours
-$468 over 184 hours
$81 over 142 hours
$300 over 139 hours
-$1 over 105 hours (my whole 2020, lol)

Super fun times when you're only getting in ~550 hours per year, where these stretches are 1/3 to 1/2 of your year. So something to look forward to as a weekend warrior.

Ggoodluck!G

Squid and GG, y'all are makin me jealous. I'm about 7bb/hr over my last 3.2k hrs. I had two 500hr BE stretches in that time which included about 250hrs of continuous losses within them. Though I guess my last 500hr BE stretch isn't as bad as it sounds because I took some hits from 5/10, then moved down to 5/5 and rebuilt, and had a another rough spell when going back up to 5/10, so measured in big-blinds as opposed to dollars, it's not as bad. Also my games go through Euro infestation periods which drops winrate leading to longer bad stretches.

I guess all I'm saying is live poker is slow. There's only so much you can do when averaging 30hands/hr. In regards to stack depth, live is way shallower than online. 100bb online with 2.5x opens and mostly HU or 3 way pots is maybe like 200bb live where standard opens are 4x+ and there's lots of 4-5way pots.

+1

The more hours you accumulate (and it's taken me a decade to accumulate my 5K, which is obviously lolable when compared to someone putting in pro hours), the more you realize what a lol sample size it really is (especially when comparing various lol "big" sample sizes within them).

ETA: Inb4 I lose $102K over my next 5K hours and it turns out I'm a breakeven player after all.

Ggoodlucktousall,imoG

This thread helps me out in rough patches to realize I am not alone. When I'm on 4-5 losing sessions in a row. Driving to the casino every weekend to fold for hours. Watching bad play after bad play be rewarded. Missing every flop and every draw. Losing every significant pot I enter.

I come to this thread to remind myself that variance is real AF and it's all a big joke.

GL out there.

Wish I could edit my post above, but if I total those breakeven stretch numbers all together (which are admittedly all cherry picked for maximum lol's), that means I've spent a full 1/4 of my poker playing time at the 1/3 NL table in stretches where I'm winning not quite $1 per hour. Just goes to show that a huge percentage of the time we're just treading water trying to keep from drowning while waiting for something good to happen.

Glol@thelongtermG

Appreciate the insight and that is a good point. Guess I was trying to hedge against being blinded down and go under 100BB. My current stop loss is to bring three buy-ins with me and leave if I ever fall below 100BB. I think I've done an okay job so far understanding that ranges are more heavily weighted towards value. Although I had a light call down last session that i wish I could take back. I've also done some balancing such as checking back a strong hand which is unnecessary vs. non thinking players. I feel like the more I play the more I will get used to the dynamics of live play.

The hours you put in per year is what I was estimating I could do so thank you for sharing. That's insane that your 1000 hour stretches have such different results. I better brace myself for what I have coming!

I've been playing a lot of live poker this year. Mostly 2/2.

I usually do pretty good because the games are so soft. However, my last 8 sessions have been horrible. I'm down about 14 buyins. Now, admittedly there's a lot of reasons for this: I've started experimenting more with bluffs, 3betting and increasing the size of value bets.

And of course there's also tilt and just bad plays.

But 14 buyins seems like a lot to me for live low stakes poker. So I was wondering what players at similar stakes experience in their downswings? I don't have many poker buddies to talk with about live cash strategy (mostly mtt). So it'd be great to hear from folks with experience in this.

TLDR;
What is an expected or "normal" downswing for winning players at this level? (not that I think I'm a longterm winner yet)

I've always heard that having 20 buy-ins was a good bankroll that should be safe for a winning player. That number would seem to take into account a 14 buy-in downswing, so... let us know if you hit 20 buy-ins down?

lots of crap to wade through but there is a ton of discussion about what you are looking for in the win rate thread. link below

Short answer is it depends. If you are having tilt and bad play issuse you will need a MUCH larger bnkroll than someone who plays like a robot. My biggest DS is ballpark 15 buy ins over a real big sample @ 2/5. Dicking around with experimenting during a DS is the opposite of what you want to do.


https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...nances-771192/

What do you buy in for? How big does the game play? Average open size?