No, I'm not speaking about variance. I'm not trying to argue against that.
I don't think anyone really knows exactly what sample size is a definitive indicator of true variance.
Maybe I don't really know my own point my self.
I guess I was complaining about, not arguing, is how internet players constantly, seemingly belittle live player's experience as far as volume is concerned.
It all goes back to when the old high stakes poker was televised and one of the younger internet guys, I don't remember who it was, was claiming he had gained a lot more experience than Doyle in a few years of playing online. I thought that was pretty ridiculous, even if he was dealt a lot more hands online.
If Brunson played poker for 50 years, 6 days a week, with the conservative estimate of 8 hours a day(30 hands an hour), he'd have played 3 and a half million hands in his lifetime.
I think, after a certain count, volume becomes irrelevant anyway.
I don't know exactly what that number is but it is at some point.
You can't argue with me that because you've seen 3million hands and I've maybe only seen a million, that that really makes a difference.
Didn't intend to ruffle any feathers, just like a good conversation.

Experience level is not a winrates bankroll or finances discussion. The variance part is, but the "how experienced are different types of players" stuff is a derail ITT. If you want to continue that discussion, please take it to the chat thread or PMs.

Oops. Ok, apologies

Not trying to shut you down. It's just that this thread is constantly getting derailed, so we keep a pretty tight "keep it on topic" leash on it. It's a fine discussion for the Poker Theory or Psych forum, or in a low-content thread in this forum.

Detroit, AC, FL, basically everywhere I can think of. Even California is no-flop no-drop, although they pull WAY too much OTF itself.

The St. Louis, MO area is also no flop, no drop.

I played in a poker room in, I believe Oklahoma, where as soon as you posted, they would take the small blind. So you couldn't even chop the blinds without a rake being taken.

Thank you for posting this regarding 500 hour downswings. Although I have not reached a 500 hour downswing (yet) it sure does feel like it. I guess it's "good" to know I'm not the only one. For the time being I will continue plugging away, reading more on the "Live Low-stakes NL" thread, but the thought of 100% quitting poker has crossed my mind, more so recently. I hate being a quitter when I know that I have the mental capability to be a winner, but the bankroll has taken a significant hit because of my downswing. And I wont even get into the mental aspect of taking these bad beats in hands w/big pots. But anyway, thanks again.

Speaking to my last post, I just looked at my stats and over 219 hours in cash games, I've lost roughly 30% of my bankroll. The only thing that makes this better is when I add in my tournament play over that same time period, my losses go down to about 8.5% of my bankroll. So my tournament play is getting me $46.47/hr but over a much smaller sample size.

I know beating the rake at small Vegas tournaments is damn near impossible from a statistical standpoint. I'm talking about tournaments such as the $80-$130 entries at Orleans and like the $100 @ MGM and the $140 @ Wynn.

However, I much more enjoy playing in tournaments and think my game is more suited for this including mixed game tournaments than grinding it out at 1/2 NL cash games. I am almost to the point where I dread playing 1/2 NL, which probably is partly because I'm on this big downswing. And just from my 1st hand experiences, generally speaking the competition is softer in these tournaments. The obvious problem is not only beating the rake, but the huge variance when compared w/ cash games. I realize you can go a LONG time without cashing in tournaments. Then again I think "would I be down 30% of my bankroll if instead of playing cash I used that money to play in tournaments". I tend to think not.

My question is this. Should I make the plunge into playing these tournaments strictly, should I just stick with 1/2 NL, or should I mix it up, mainly playing 1/2 NL but mixing in some tournaments? Also, I DO enjoy playing 1/2 PLO (I'm a noob), but I'm not sure of the bankroll I should have playing this game like at Aria.

I probably should have asked this question when my bankroll was larger. My basic question is do I go with what I enjoy doing and maybe it's not the best choice logically from a rake beating perspective, or do I continue to grind it out at 1/2 NL, even though I dread it right now (I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the losing streak I'm currently on)?

My goal when starting 1/2 NL full time in April 2018 was to eventually move up to 2/5 NL by the end of 2018. Obviously that is not going to happen since my bankroll has gone in the opposite direction and I have not played nearly well enough to do so.

So full disclosure I have been trying to make this my sole source of income, my bankroll is decreasing, and I am beginning to feel that I should just give up and get a 9 to 5 job. In other words to face reality that I suck at poker. I still have plenty of living expense money and my roll isnt completely decimated, but I have set limits on how far I'm willing to take this money wise so I have living expenses for enough time to find a regular job.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Dear The Dude,
It sounds to me like you have almost already made your decision. As you are currently seeing the gamboolin lifestyle is incredibly isolating and lonely. When you are in the midst of a nasty downswing it seems like you are the only person in the world that runs this bad. The truth is this feeling never goes away - cuz the swings are out there and they will happen.

If you really "love poker" play it part time as a side income. Otherwise get all the way out. The glass ceiling on poker is constantly getting lower and thicker. If you are struggling with 1/2 after this much time you have some serious leaks.

You are not a quitter if you stop trying to be a full time pro. You have simply seen the light that there are far better ways to make a living rather than dealing with the energy suck that is the casino environment, and the never ending lonely road that is the professional poker player.

If you are dreading playing 1/2 now after only being on the scene for under a year imagine how you are going to feel after 5, 10, or 20 years.

Very few people last more than a few years trying to be a pro. And those that do last seem to always be trying to find a way out (myself included). That should be evidence enough to hang it up.

good luck and best wishes
skwid

+1 to Squiddy

As a purely recreational player myself, I don't see why anyone wouldn't just keep poker as a fun hobby (like any hobby) that may (or may not) make some small side income, while having a "normal" job (whatever that is to you) to earn your actual living.

Curious as to what kinda downswing you are on / what 30% of your BR actually is? It's also likely not going to get any easier, and there's a good chance you'll eventually encounter another downswing that makes this downswing look lol (are you prepared for that?).

GgoodluckG

this was posted in another thread, i think it answers your question

With these numbers: Yes this winrate is believable

Archie being a known ap/convicted cheat takes a little away from the sun run aspect but still.

I was not belittling anyone's experience or making the argument you suggest. Reread my post. Obviously playing 1 hand every 2 seconds you don't gain as much from that hand as you would if you had 2 minutes (though most hands are quarter second auto folds and the tougher hands got more like 15s per decision). I was only demonstrating 30k hands is not that large as a sample size to show one can run good or bad for very long periods in live poker. I'm looking at the comparison purely statistically.

3.5 million hands is a gigantic life sample size though. Very few people will get close to that.

Sorry for the unintentional derail Garick, I just want to clarify I wasn't demeaning anyone's experience as less significant.

I play in Florida they drop preflop here at least in the Tampa area. Pretty sure they do in SFL but could be mistaken.

I said in another thread I thought LA was "no flop no drop" but a couple posters including MikeStarr said I was mistaken.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone just would like accurate information about the state of rake around the country and have heard contradictory things.

The Isle in Pompano Beach (S. Florida) is No flop No drop, but most of the other S. Florida rooms are not. I know for sure that The Hard Rock and Palm Beach Kennel Club are not. I cant remember about the smaller rooms as I dont play those others much at all.

Thanks for listening and taking the time to write an honest reply along w/gobbledygeek. I try to be honest with myself as well. I went out and played today and FINALLY had a decent winning session (up $313 in 4 1/2 hours). I realize one winning session isnt going to turn things around for me, but I had a decent player at the table say to me that "I'm tough to play against" (which obviously isnt something that happens often to anyone) and then I turned around a few hands later and take another big pot from him and he did a table change right after that. So at least that gives me some hope.

Maybe me posting that request for advice was cathartic. A similar thing happened to me when I wasnt doing well at DFS. I posted a message on a DFS web site not understanding why I wasnt winning and then that very night took down 3rd place in a tourny and the rest is history as I ended up having a career 19% ROI over a few years playing DFS. Maybe in both instances it helped me reset and clear my mind of negative thoughts and just allowed me to concentrate at the task at hand.

In any case, I'm giving myself until the end of the year and then I'll re-evaluate if I'll continue playing or not. I know that is a very short time frame, but I think I've given myself adequate time to get things together poker-wise.

But thanks again.

I don't remember seeing that when I was in Tampa at the Casino a few years ago, and I know for sure the dog tracks around Ft Myers were no-flop-no-drop.

Angrist - Hard Rock Tampa has had preflop rake for a least the past 3.5 years. That being said the game quality makes up for that rake that is oh so painful to watch happen

Has anyone here played in the UK? How would you compare the games to American ones if so?

I have never played poker in a room that did not take pre-flop rake. There is definitely pre-flop rake in Los Angeles. Never thought about how much rake ( in a standard casino environment where it isn't too crazy) can impact winrate. Just another reason why games get progressively worse. Increased rake + increased player skill + increased cost of living + inflation cant be good. Had a conversation with a friend where I argued that because of the long term increases in those bad variables that as a live pro things would only trend downward. He disagreed but it was an interesting conversation.

Then you need to play in more rooms. There are a LOT that don't do that. All over the country.

I play in enough home games with guys I'm chummy with to know what the rake for the night is ... and it's easily $200/hr at a NLHE table. Call it $20/seat/hr. It's hard to say exactly how much of that the winning vs. the losing players pay, but it's not insignificant at all.

I have only played in <6 rooms on the east coast, west coast and midwest total. I never said there weren't rooms that don't take pre-flop rake only that I haven't played in them. The most interesting part is when people discuss the hourly difference caused by rake. How it could be 15$+- based on rake is an eye catching number. Is there a reasonable way to calculate this number that makes sense or are people just grabbing numbers out of thin air?

You figure the average rake at a place per hand, then the average number of hands per hour, then divide by the number of players at the table. That gives you the average rake per hour at that casino.