No doubt about that, but when I was playing there, theres no chance there were 6 pros playing at any table I was at. Maybe they play later in the evening but if so, Id say dont play later in the evening.

So what do you think the upper range would be currently, if not forced to make 1500 hours in one year?

Its sounding like $120's... or less due to how the game has changed? (I find we use this excuse a lot though, so I discount perceived year to year changes). My 270 hours is basically my first few hundred hours playing live cash. It felt like $120 was really difficult to maintain because of its reliance on people dumping stacks for no good reason, but maybe that really is the norm most of the time.

Yeah. And we can obviously be confident in our ability to beat the game quicker. But idk how we get any closer to accurately assessing the winrate just by winning more.

I’m getting my tax return next week and I’m thinking of starting to go play live a bit more. I’m primarily an online player and I’ve beaten limits up to 25NL over a decent sample size. I would start at $1-$2 and see how it goes, is $20/hr sustainable for a winning online micro player? I’m averaging around $4/hr online so anything above that is gravy .

I’ll still be playing online but I feel there’s more potential profit playing live poker.

Yes, $20/hr is likely sustainable, but be prepared for some serious adjustments, the biggest ones being that flatting is not usually a sign of a weak range live and that calling too much is by far the most common leak. For more on converting to live, see this (admittedly exaggerated for effect, but not as much as you think) thread.

If you are pretty sure you were around 125/hr why would it be so hard to believe that someone could beat it for 100/hr? I feel like the norm is like 2-3 pros/serious players per table now who dont suck plus some recs who buy in short and then some older tighter regs who occasionally buy in 80-150 bbs.That pro/serious range can and often does go from 2-3 to 4-6 easily throughout the year though.

I don't think $125/hr was my true winrate. I ran above average. I have had equally long streches with winrates that were a fraction of that.

The games also aren't as soft as they used to be consistently (they still aren't bad, but people used to gii way worse).

“Pros” or not, very few are any good. Greater than $100/hr over 1500 hours is very possible.

I'm not arguing that it's impossible.

I said I'd bet the under.

I think you're being generous with the "competitive" designation

Put it this way, I'd bet there are more people who have results tracker apps than there are people who do any form of study.

Does anyone track win rate difference at 1/2 wiith and without rake?

I'm playing a home game with no rake or jackpot drop. Although I have no where near a real sample to determine my win rate I'm curious how I'd convert my win rate if I were comparing it to a casino game (10% up to $5 with a $1 jackpot drop.)

I only have 30 hours and my win rate is around $20/hr. Trying to figure out if that is a real $12/hr or what.

It's hard to account for rake in your own statistics. Not only does it come out of the pots that you win, but the stack sizes of you opponents are smaller when you beat them.

That being said, I think a good $1/2 rake is something like $100-150/hr in house share. So maybe $10/hr per player *on average*.

Yea, we’ve talked about it before. It’s pretty complex. I personally have tried to see what is better, $5+2 with promos or straight $5 no promos. The oddity is that promo rooms always have more player pop, but also generally more action. So higher pre-rake wr but higher rake (with partial rakeback) vs lower wr pre rake but lower rake overall.

In general, rake sucks. If you are playing without it and are confident in the game’s providence (this is where my concerns would be) then it’s likely much better for your wr.

One of the reasons I track in excel. I enter game location in each session entry and have to rake stats of each location. I’ll likely never have enough data to mean anything, but it’s there.

It's not really worth comparing. The rake is a condition of any given game, just like the buyin structure and (most importantly) the player pool.

you mentioned it but honestly there's just no point thinking about gleaning anything out of 30 hours. there's not a huge amount to be gleaned from 300 hours. there just isn't. just enjoy having a home game with no rake and try to win as much money as you can. The single best thing at home games apart from no rake, is the small player pool...so you can really work hard on taking notes on players and then adjusting to them and exploiting them.

I will say that my casino (which has very high rake), estimates between $280-300 an hour comes off the table in rake. So if we divide that by 9, it means we must beat the game by between $31 and $34 an hour to break even. So at least in my case, all other things being equal (which they never are) I would expect my win rate to be $31-$34 higher at a home game of the same stake

Oh yeah I get anything under 1000 is pretty meaningless. I was just wondering if there is an easy way to convert as my state is looking at allowing casinos next year and an Indian tribe is wanting to open one 30 min from my house.

In my experience from living in Florida when they started spreading no limit the home games died. So my expectation is that the home games will die off when/if the casino opens.

the easy way is to calculate average rake per seat at your casino and then deduct that from your home game hourly

I've posted my overall giraffe at 1/3 NL a few pages back.

From 2010 - 2015, the maximum rake was $5 in my game (10%).

In 2016, it increased to $6.

In 2017, it increased to $7.

In 2018, it increased to $8 (although the maximum BI also increased from $300 to $400, not that this makes a big difference if most of the table buys in for less anyways).

I only get about ~550 hours a year in, but I'm pretty sure the increase in rake (along with other things) has had a substantial effect on my winrate, although it is a little difficult to quantify exactly (especially since ups/downs can also be attributed to other things that occur along the way as well, plus just variance). It has definitely had a substantial effect on my strategy (winning big pots preflop where there is no rake is a huge coup, dicking around in small maximum raked pots is mostly a waste of time, etc.).

GcluelessrakenoobG

Not if you know what youre doing and you have a skill advantage over your opponents.

I may play 10 small-medium pots in the $60-$150 range (most of which I raised preflop and they never get to showdown) during a session that you would've folded preflop. Over many sessions, Im going to win more of those 10 extra pots per session than I lose and I'm going to tend to win the bigger ones and lose the smaller ones, resulting in lot of extra profit.

That's why good LAGs win more than good TAGs. You just don't want to put in the effort to figure out how to play like this...which is totally fine but I wish you would stop saying it cant be done or is a waste of time.

Well, I did qualify it with "mostly". And with that I mostly mean to playing in position and choosing your spots wisely.

If you're just splashing around in all these multiway pots from every position, you're really going to need a *massive* advantage over your opponents in these rake killing small pots, imo.

GbutIdigress:winrates!G

+1
Don't mistake "LA people" and "LA poker people". Poker population is mostly immigrant based and not the wealthiest group of people in LA. I have played in every LA poker room and I cringe then people think that LA poker rooms attract affluent Hollywood types( not at 5/5 or 5/10 level).

Weird argument. Yes LA is poor and scummy. It’s also one of the highest concentrations of wealth in the country.

That’s usually how it works with big metropolises. At least in usa#1.

Very rarely do high stakes games run outside of these types of cities.

Had my first 'downswing', but seemed to recover nicely last month. I tried (for 3 mintues) to overlay dates on the x-axis but couldn't figure it out before getting bored. Hour zero is essentially November 1st, 2018.

I'm going to try and play a little more aggressive this month so might have more variance as well. I switched from 1/2NL to 2/5NL around the 450 hour mark.

Nice results Marsh. So you’re around 800 hours in right now?
Are you shooting for an hours/earnings goal and is this your job now?

+1 great results
looks like you are pumping out some serious hours