Agreed, if it's 200 max 10 buy-ins will happen, most places offer deeper buyins though

Despite ups and downs, I seem to win about $11-$12 per hour at $1/$2. I really feel like it should be double that.

Lol ah Florida. What a dream state we live in.

THE STREAK IS OVER.

Just ended my longest ever 1/3 NL win streak: 15 sessions.

15-0 over 138.25 hours for $5,676.00 = $41.01/hr (13.67bb/hr).

The loss also ended my biggest ever upswing:

32-3 over 355.30 hours for $16,846.00 = $47.39/hr (15.80bb/hr).

GwouldrecommendsellingallstocksinGGasquicklyasposs ibleG

Knowing nothing about how well you play, or the players you're up against, I would say that $70/hr in a $500 max 2/5 is probably not happening over the long haul. It's currently being achieved by a select few players at my casino, but we have a $1000 max buyin. Also, you are more than a few months away from knowing. In live poker, we simply do not see enough hands for variance to work itself out over the course of 1000 hrs. I'm sure many 2/5 grinders will attest to this. I've personally had three month stretches of break-even, as well as three months of averaging $120/hr.

Hey guys, is 10bb/hr an attainable win rate for $1/2NL? Going to play a lot over the summer since I'm out of college and was just wondering. Thanks.

I've played 160 hours of 1/2 over the past couple years. These results include my first few months playing where I was horrible and was down 4 BI early. I've run bad in a few big pots and only recently have been playing better. I'm current only a 1bb winner. How likely is it that I'm just dealing with a small sample size or am I really just a break even player after tips and rake? Lately I've felt my game has gotten better and I'm up 900 on the year so far over around 60 hours.

a very-low-end-of-typical standard deviation is about $150 per hour... so your standard deviation for 160 hours of play would be around $1900. given a profit of $320, this means you can predict with 66% certainty that your actual expectation was between -1580 (-4.9 bb/hr) and +2220 (6.9 bb/hr) and with 95% certainty that your actual expectation was between -3480 (-10.9) and +4120 (+12.8 bb/hr).

This means that your numbers tell you with 95% certainty that your expectation falls between the worst donators and the most successdul llnl grinders. To put it more succinctly, your sample size is not large enough to give you a clear picture of your expectation. And this is given a standard deviation much lower than you see in real peoples games.

Note that if you were a very large winner, or very large loser, a smaller sample might be sufficient to tell whether you were a winning or losing player, but it takes quite a large sample to give you that information when you are close to break even

ime the best llnl grinders are making around 10-15 bb/hr pretty regularly.... so yeah, its attainable, provided you are better than nearly all of your opponents.

Thank you very much for this. I assumed this was the case but getting up there in hours and still being a breakeven player was kind of worrying, especially as I felt I was playing a LOT better. Fwiw, my STD listed in my session app is 107.

unless you enter your results every hour, these apps under-estimate your standard deviation / hour because they average all the hours in your session, then use these averaged results to determine SD.

I actually do update it as my stack changes. I also use check your bets. Either way, that helps my confidence in my game. I had suspected as much but just wanted to make sure I wasn't lying to myself.

i play 200-250 hours a month, and im guessing u don't bc almost no one does, so my results over 3 months are a lot closer to a good sample size than you would think. the players at my room are horrible, they pay me off in spots they never should for huge amounts. my worst month in the last 4 was 46/hr over 218 hours. one guy told me his results over 18 months at 2/5 was 65 an hour, but he plays more laggy, completely different style than me. if u are the best 2/5 player in your room in a room full of bad players 70/hr is probably more than possible. when I discuss things with other good players at my room I tell them I think I just adjust better to horrible players than they do

just from talking to people here in vegas, my estimate is that the top winners in 2/5 are making somehwere between 60-70 an hour over statistically significant sample sizes.

The games here tend to be so-so though these days, especially at the B where 2/5 is no longer the lowest stake.

So if you really are in a venue with great games (and nothing i have heard about FL has contradicted this) 70 an hour is certainly achievable for a good player, even if that player is not one of the elite top earners.

I would continue to put in as much hours as you can handle, and gather your rosebuds while you may. Because the unasked here is the pertinent one -- "How long can a game thats this good, stay this good"

I agree 100% with this. if 50 an hour for a good player in vegas is the norm, the games here are 10x softer, so 70/hr is more that doable, but ill be more than happy with 50-60. the reason I put in so many hours is bc of not knowing how long it will last, but I have a feeling once my bankroll is 50-80k ill be putting in 35-40 hours a week instead of 55-60. right now I enjoy it though

Tbh I tend to think that most winrates here are inflated

Not saying I disagree, but by which means?

Confirmation bias? (Winners posting winnings, losers not posting losses)

Small samples?

Exaggerations?

Just curious.

Don't doubt many lie to themselves and others about w/r. But I also don't doubt $60-$70 an hour is achievable at 2/5 in Fl

Meh...I don't get that feeling. 10bb/hr is easily attainable at 1/2 for anyone playing ABC is just about any room. And from what I've seen at my nearest card room, 2/5 can be the more beatable game if you even halfway try to table select. That seems to be the limit the gamblers like to play.

Vegas has the highest concentration of pros, but there are just so many fish. Even a guy like me can spot the solids and just stay out of their way. I'm happy to carve out whatever I can from the easy marks. I've also played a couple of FL rooms, and can confirm the Tampa Hard Rock is stupid soft at 1/3. If anyone told me they were winning 15bb at that game, I wouldn't immediately doubt them.

I think the fundamental issue is that people run hot for a few hundred hours go "LOL LOOK ATR MY WINRATE" and post it, then when they run bad and it drops by 35% they never mention it but still believe that their winrate while running good is their true winrate.

I'm not saying that people aren't winning huge over big sample sizes; just that the percentage of people who post that they have 10bb/hr+ winrates is inflated by sampling error since they post at their peak etc... and when they are winning 5bb/hr over the next 500 hrs they don't mention it.

Like I'm not saying 65 $/hr isn't achievable but that the people who think they (have that/going to have that) winrate is just mularkey.

My WR at 1/2 last month was 38bb/hr. You telling me that's not sustainable?

fwiw the same thing happened with online poker where everybody thought everybody was winning at 10bb/100 or w/e then people actually did a big database pool and it was like "oh **** we all suck"

I dropped 30% in one bad month at 600+ hours.

So ya...quit spewing truth, 11t.

May was my first month of official record keeping. This is all at $5/$5 NL. I'm pretty happy with the results. There was one specific hand that was a horrible bad beat that would have swung my results +2400. I'd like my long-term win rate to be higher than $46/hour, but one month doesn't mean much either way. On to June!

You're setting yourself up for disappointment after just one month, especially one that looks as hot as yours

50 smacks per hour is NOT the norm for a vegas pro. It is the norm for the ELITE vegas pros of which there is a handfull. 25-35 is the norm for the abc vegas pro capable of pulling off the occasional bruff