I had a 3k downswing when playing 1/2 during a 1000ish hour sample where I averaged around 10BB an hour. It can definitely happen and isn't that unusual. But keep in mind...

I have a very high standard deviation (currently 147BB/100) from playing sLAG

I buyin 300 at 1/2 so that's 10BI not 15

The downswing was likely exacerbated by tilt.

If you play a nitty style and have a high winrate and don't tilt ever then your risk of ruin with 3.5k is minimal. But if even one of those things isn't true I would want a bigger bankroll. Like if you win at more like 5BB/HR I wouldn't play with 3.5k unless you're super nitty.

Do you guys have any insane short runs where you make 40-100 /hr? Lol for say like 3-8 hrs? I play pretty aggro.. I wanna say laggy but prolly tag. I like to be the opening raiser in pots and focus on isoing limpers when I’m in position say on button or close to button with hands such as suited connectors or at least coordinated cards. In my first 18 hrs, I found people to play super straight up when I raise Cbet which makes the game easy as I Cbet a lot on headsup pots or against 2 opponents. I feel I do well not getting my stack in without a really good equity against opponents. I play aggro but very nitty when it comes to going all in etc (minus one poor pot I played where a player jammed like 65 bbs and I called with a draw 9-10 on a 7-88 flop) where I should have found a fold.

I’m at 16-18/hr over a super short run of cards (18 hrs lol). For first time in my life, I stay at the max buy in of 200 even if I lose some pots early. I’ve found building a stack easy even if I need to add 100-200 in my 3 sessions so far. Games I play are pretty darn nitty so I feel aggro play works well- just gotta avoid bad allin spots I guess.i feel have a bankroll helps my game as if I lose 200, it’s no real big deal if it’s due to bad variance. I’m just working on not getting it in really bad in tough spots.

Btw I’m going to try to add 40-80 dollars a week to my bankroll just from extra income. If I lose this 3k, it’s not going to crush my world. I have money to add to this but I really wanna grind cash now and not wait.

The games I play are pretty tight and people buy in for short amounts like 80-150. I wanna say max, 2-3 people at table have full buy in in front sadly.

I’m going to prolly wait a year before I take a shot at 2/5. I wanna make sure I can beat 1-2 for a solid rate of return and get my bankroll up to atleast 8k+ so I can shot take at 2/5 where I move down if it doesn’t go well. Ideally I might split 1-2 and 2-5 so my # of
Buyins is higher vs just playing 2/5. Thanks for the info on my question. Great responses. Sorry if this is a jumble as I just got back from a night out drinking with friends ha.

3-8 hours means nothing. I had a 4 hour session where I won over 715/hr at 1/3 once. Really, hourly is pretty meaningless below 200 hours, and not very meaningful then.

^^^^

I've played 10 hour 1/2 300 max sessions where I cashed out 3k+ on several occasions.

I turned my last $80 into $6.4k once in 4 hours of 5/T.

I find this focus on winrates to be silly and even detrimental to one's game. Winrate is something you should just look back upon after thousands of hours of play, not constantly check to chart performance. In the short term, it's not terribly representative of much of anything aside from perhaps run good. Even after thousands of hours the stats aren't going to be terribly accurate if you've been working to improve your game throughout that time frame.

Same.

I’ve had sessions where my hourly was +50bbs/hr. Obviously meaningless and just massive positive variance or extreme game conditions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I once sat down and doubled up my $500 on the first hand dealt to me. The hand took about 2 mins. I thought I was going to be rich at $15,000/hr. The next hand I folded and it cut my hourly in HALF! Now that's variance!

I’m not mainly a 1/2 live cash player but I do play a mix of 1/2 and low stakes mtts. This is a relatively small sample but over the course of about 20 cash sessions and 60 tournaments I’m about 3k in the red which would be about 15 1/2 buy ins.

My ITM % is pretty high though because out of the 60 or so tourneys I’ve played I’ve cashed at least 10. The biggest mistakes I’ve made are usually always on the final table bubble or at final table. This is the reason my red line has suffered the most. Those decisions improve with time though and hopefully I’ll get a better score.

My cash sample is pretty small but I’ve run horridly in cash. Just a few weeks ago I was set over set for 100bb and that’s pretty normal for me. Also, I do not play very many hands. 5 hands in an hour would be loose for me. I know the difference in ranges between mtts and cash games. I know I can play a little loser in mtts but I would say I’m still on the nittier side of a tag player. I am just now realizing I am overfolding a lot of spots and trying to work in bluffs when necessary.

I also study about 10 hours a week so we’ll see if my win rate can improve but it looks like it’s pretty easy to have 3k down swings if you mix in any amount of mtts or you’re taking shots.

lol wp

I'm a break-even player at $1/$2 and have never been down more than $2,500 in over 1500 hours. I've never been up more than $2,500 either.

Wow, that's seems like a fairly incredible feat?!?

I mean, not good enough to ever get past $2500 in profit (so, for example, at the 1500 hour mark the best you could be doing is a paltry $1.66/hr), and yet at the same time not bad enough (combined with not running into bad variance on top of extremely mediocre play) to ever lose over $2500?!?

Post the giraffe for lols?

GoddlyimpressedG

I already posted it. See post 22531.

Lol, for some reason I never clued into that.

I guess within that it does look like you had about a ~$4500 downswing at one point (which kinda makes sense as a ~breakevenish player + expected bad run over this time period), but still kinda amazing how you've managed to keep in between the wickets for this long a period.

GgoodluckG

Actually, I think most players are like me, but they don't keep track of their play and they don't post on here. I would think I was a winning player otherwise. I still hold out hope that I will break out to profits one day.

In a raked game, especially where a certain percentage are winning players, there is no way most players are ~breaking even.

ETA: I'd guesstimate that about $200 comes off my 1/3 NL table per hour in rake / BBJ / tip. So over 1500 hours that's $300,000.00. Someone is paying for that, and it ain't me, and it ain't you.

Gyou'redoingbetterthanmost,imoG

Conventional wisdom says that 90%+ of all players lose money. A guy I know who used to work for an online poker site told me that its common knowledge in the business that 95% of all online players lose. They have access to everyone's account so I assume they know.

Thanks for posting honestly in here and all the best for turning break even into profit

My advice....

fold more pre flop out of position

Force yourself to value bet more and more often in marginal spots than you currently feel comfortable doing

A life-long friend of mine retired several - ok, many - years ago from his position as the poker room manager of the Hollywood Park Casino in Inglewood, CA. He once asked me to estimate the following:

"What percentage of the poker money that walks into the room, goes down the hole as rake. Skip the tips, skip the promo drops, step right up and make a guess. On average, in concept only, over the course of a year, your mileage may vary, just make a guess Noz."

I guessed 60-65%.

He guessed 85-90%.

He would know better than me, I would think.

Which means any winning players are fighting over their "share", at any given moment, of the remaining 10-15%.

Sobering if at all close to accurate.

Pre-flop is one of my strengths. I can out fold anyone pre-flop. I think my biggest leak is calling too much with second best on the river. I'm sure I could find more value bets and more bluffing spots too. I'll post after 500 more hours, but it may be 2020 before I get there.

your friend is talking nonsense imo and your guess is far more accurate

if rake (in my room at least) is $300ish an hour, that would mean that only between $30 and $45 was being 'won' in total by the winners, whereas under your calc, it would mean that $120-130 an hour was being won by the winners, which I think might still be conservative tbh

Based on his post he is saying that players only retain 10 to 15% of the money, not win it. So, in an 8 hour session, $2400 would go down in rake at your casino (which has very high rake). If this is 85% of the total money in play then that means that players bought in for a total of $2,824 or $314 per person and players would only expect to retain 15% of that or $423 total (minus tips and bbj).

I suppose he means the players will leave with money but will eventually come back with it and it will go back down as rake but that doesn't really make a lot of sense to me as winning players bankrolls will continue to grow over time (very little of my money ever goes back in play) while losing players will continually reload with more money from their job or savings.

the 90% of poker players lose is misleading too. that may be true but that doesn't mean that 9/10 players at a table are losing players. Most losing players might average 5 hours a week over a year whereas most of the winning players are there 20-45 hours a week as serious regs or pros

so perhaps 90% of the player pool do lose money but I'd guess that on average there are between 2 and 3 winning players at every llsnl table and probably at least 3 at mid stakes

But if you are at a table with 3 pros that table is not going to be beatable if you are similar skill as the other pros without multiple fish spewing off chips. I sometimes am at a table where every player I estimate is break even or better overall. Such a game is not beatable. In fact in such a game the break even players are losing and the winning players breaking even with perhaps the very best player modestly winning.

It is kind of illusory to think of someone as a winning player since it all depends on the table. The trick is finding games where we are vastly superior to other players. If I see 3 pros at a table I transfer or leave because I'm just wasting time otherwise.

I don't disagree with any of that. 'winning players at a table' should probably be interpreted as 'winning players at that stake in your room' or sth similar because yes, I know that I'm a winning player at my stake in my room but if all the best pros were at one table, I'd be a dog at that table

I'm blessed to play in a market where the bad players truly are very bad, we very often have people burning through 3-4k in the worst possible fashion, so I will often sit at a table with 3 pros and even a couple of other decent winning regs and still think there's a lot of money to be made.