I guess it depends what the purpose of tracking your winrate is / what you are attempting to measure.

If it's just to see how you stack up against your opponents poker skill-wise, I'd probably just include dealer tips (which can be seen as a "normal" cost of playing poker, much like the rake). Including costs such as drinks/food doesn't seem right, otherwise that means your poker skill is dependent on how much food/drink you purchase during your session. And comp rewards can really throw your winrate outta wack, especially if binking a big one (like a bad beat jackpot); I have a separate column for this in my spreadsheet.

But if the purpose is to instead track every single cent spent/made for your poker hobby, maybe you should include everything.

Git'suptoyouandwhatyouareattemptingtomeasureG

Very incorrect. Playing to 'not lose' is generally one of the fundamental flaws awful players have.

Generally correct, though it is dependent on your ability to replenish said $1000 away from the table. But considering that the above quote was meant to be a supporting argument for the 1st quote, there are plenty of other situations that would contradict the 1st quote, most of which begin with being properly rolled for the game you're playing

If you have a game that has a couple massive whales and otherwise soft players, I can see a ~20bb/hour win rate being possible. I've played in a game (1/3 with uncapped buy-in) that had 3-4 semi-regulars who were just super-rich guys who would come, shove/call all in ever other hand, rebuy 5 times, and go home, while the rest of the field was a mix of a few average to good players and then guys who would come and either donk off or bleed off a couple small buyins and then go. One of these guys would buy in for $1k (he usually brought $5k with him) and absolutely refused to fold anything stronger than K-high regardless of the bet size or the board. Had the rake not been insane in that game, someone could maintain a 20bb/hour win rate if you only played when the lineup was good, or had some other scenario where the vast majority of your hours were against deep-pockets whales.

You don't seem to understand the concept of risk of ruin. If you have no capital, you can't play poker and you can't win money, so your winrate is meaningless. And I'll try to make this simple for you:

In my example, queens are roughly a 53/47 favorite against AK, so your call will net you around +$60. However, it's a high variance call because you are risking $1000 to win $60. You could easily lose 3 or 4 of these flips in a row. So even though you are making the correct play by calling from an EV standpoint you are making a serious error from a risk of ruin standpoint if your bankroll is only $2000.

Obviously, as I stated before if you can replenish your bankroll then your risk of ruin is essentially zero, so you can go ahead and maximize your winrate. But for the average joe, his risk of ruin is not zero. And I'm not sure why you think trying to avoid the risk of ruin makes someone an awful play poker player.

As for being properly rolled for their game, most people aren't. A 10 BB/100 ($10/hr in 2/3) winner with a standard deviation of 100 needs a bankroll of 1498 BB to reduce his risk of ruin to 5%. And most people aren't anywhere close to being 10 BB/100 winners, despite some of the winrates being posted in here.

In your example you are playing in the wrong game given the size of your roll and the fact that you have it all on the table.

A big Part of being a good gambler is money management obv

I'm guessing Johnny understands Risk of Ruin just fine. I suspect you'll find little patience in this forum for strategic discussion for the under-rolled player.

Lol dude he understands RoR

What he's saying is that your argument to avoid "high variance spots" even though they may be +Ev is incorrect UNLESS justifiable by RoR. If that is the case, then you are likely under rolled for the game you're playing (which is exactly what he said).

So say you have 50-100 buy ins for your game, you'll happily take any 55/45 spots knowing its long-term profitable. If you have 5-10 buy ins, it might be best to avoid those spots; however if you're in that spot to begin with, you're likely playing too big for your bankroll.

High variance spots are a very important part of a crushers WR. My WR drastically shot up once my measly 5 buyin bankroll went to 20 buy ins and I was able to play correct poker instead of always attempting to reduce variance with ever line I took.

Thanks for conceding my point.

As for being underolled, the lowest stakes in most places is 1-2. So you need around $3k to be properly rolled for the game and that's assuming you have a 3 BB/HR win rate. I can assure you many 1/2 bankrolls aren't close to $3k and these people should be prioritizing protecting their bankroll above maximizing their win rate.

Is it your contention that many pros have less than 15BI at 1/2 with no other source of income? Lol they aren't pros bruh

I took an embarrassingly long time to fully understand this... Smh.

But this is a straw man.

You're overriding a win rate conversation with a bankroll issue

Yeah pretty much this

You are basically describing the greatest game imaginable. If anything, it's an argument that 20bb/hr is unsustainable.

What you failed to understand is that most players do win the same amount of money in certain hands, such as FH over FH, nut flush over 2nd flush, big draw getting there against set, and so forth...

Big winners win those hands just as much as marginal winners or even losing players. What separate big winners from these guys is that they win other hands that are EV neutral or even losers because they are able to recognize small EV spots and capitalize on them.

Apparently the point he was making was that there is a vast amount of "pros" who have less then 3k to their name and this rather large select group of pros should be more worried about their RoR.

Maybe ask to change your job to part time hours or become a consultant/contractor in your field, maybe even FOR the company you work for currently.

I have a small semi seasonal business that I own that takes maybe 15-20 hours of my time these days. It feels great to not work full time doing that either. I have 2 separate incomes. Doing ANYTHING full time can get stale(taken a few shots with it as poker and it wasn't for me)! Whenever I burn out on one, I turn to the other to take up my time and it works out pretty good. Also, work/business skills are more important and relevant to life that I think you need to keep them sharp and not become super specialized/pigeon holed into poker.

1. Life balance
2. Keep marketable work skills sharp
3. Don't have to explain to people what you do for a living*
4. Basic bills always get paid(takes care of emotional drain)

"Alleged" 2015 results

$.25/.50 Hours 100 @11ph
*no cap buyin/no rake*
$1/2 Hours 291 @32ph
*no cap buyins/high rake*

$1/3 Hours 99 @24ph
*100bb max casino
$2/5 Hours 163 @ 29ph
*100bb max casino
$2/5 plo 21 @ 165ph

$5/T Hours 10 @-13ph

Tourneys hours 57 @17ph

Total hours 741 @31ph

Firstly, sorry for my bad english

I am a successful tournament player but in my country it is almost impossible to find tournaments so i am thinking if i can make money in this 2/5 live cash game

This game runs everyday except sundays, and most of the time 8 decent/good players and 2 fishes (big fish)

I don't think i am a good cash game player. My style is: When i have a big hand, i bet hard and trying to see cheap flops in position. But my reads not well. I am struggling to put them in a hand.

But when these big fishes are playing, they are calling every bet with any two in all streets. They call any bet with any backdoor draw, any pair, with everything. For example, if you bet on a KQ8 rainbow flop and they fold, they have to have something like 25off.

So my question is if i can make money out of these fishes

In these games, you can buy in minimum $150 and maximum $500 and after 2 hours of play, you can cash out and continue with whatever amount you want to (150 min.)

My plan is to buy in full and when i have a premium hand, i will bet it hard and will try to see cheap flops in position with middle pairs and suited connectors, one gappers, suited aces and broadway cards and when i make my hand, i will bet hard so with this kind of play, can i make money in long term? How much bankroll i need? Should i play a different style?

My results until now (approximately):
With fishes in the game:

1 - breakeven
2 - $6500 profit
3 - $1200 profit
4 - €1500 loss
5 - breakeven
6 - $2600 profit
7 - $2200 loss

Without fishes:

1 - $2200 loss
2 - $1800 loss

The problem is that this is not a big sample and i might have bankroll problems in the upcoming games

Welcome to the forum, ttourist. As for how to beat loose/passive games, the name of the game is value, value, value. Make a hand better than their calling range and just keep betting. A couple of good threads on the subject are here, and here. A good one for learning to range is here, and there are a lot of other good threads in the Best of LLSNL that you should read.

As far as discussing bankroll and winrate issues, I moved your post in to the right thread for that.

I mean yes, in a perfect world everyone was perfectly rolled for every game they sit in: the reality, not so much.

What people are saying about risk of ruin is also 100 percent true. If you dont have any money, and cant sit in the juicy homegame with drinking and big straddling- it doesent matter how big your winrate could be in that game. It doesent matter if the biggest whale is coming to your casino, ready to spew off buyin after buyin to the table. By going broke you have played yourself out of the sideline.

I know what i am talking about and how that feels. As alot on the forum already know ive had healthproblems over the course of the last year. As a consequence i havent been able to work or play as much as i could before, and combined with smaller amount of income just before this christmas in November start of December i was pretty much busto: for the first time in my livepoker career of 5 years. Its really frightening, because i know i can win in any game i regurarly sit in. But without a roll i am not able to play of course. A good friend staked me in a juicy game in the holidays, and i made 500 BB in a few hours, so now i am back in it and building my roll up again.

My point is that anyone can be broke/busto before they know it, as unfortunate things/life issues can happen faster than you could dream of. Alot of things can be said of OMC players, but one of their edges is that they pretty much never goes broke- they are always in the game. How handcuffed you become when you dont have money to play is something every pokerplayer should remember.

No one is disagreeing that RoR is real and that busto is real.

Money management is part of the skill set of a successful pro poker player; it is as important of skill as ability to win 10bb/hr, because like you said, you can't win if you are not playing.

Updated the finance spread sheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Thanks for posting this. I'll go look it over.

And I didn't disagree that you can make high variance plays as long as you are rolled for it. I simply said protecting your bankroll is more important than maximizing your winrate.