I would just say that the last $100 goes MUCH easier than your first $100. I don' care who ya are.


I had massive downswing this Spring that wiped out my winnings for year so far, so I year ya.

I asked this question in another thread. But how many hours of live play should one expect to have before realizing their true and accurate as possible winrate at 2/5 NLHE? Is 800+ hours enough? Now I know that this question really is player dependent, and some people play worse when things aren't going as well. But I am thinking about making a switch to possibly playing for a larger portion of my income and I want to know how many hours I should have under my belt at this level to comfortably realize that this is how much I can make at minimum at these stakes. I know that 40/hr is crushing it, but how long does one need to realize their true winrate in live play?

have a look at the two quote in this post: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=3102

It's not that hard to make $200/hr at 1/2 if you double up the first hour, quit, and never play it again. What I'm talking about is what's achievable for a solid player over a large sample of many tens of thousands of hands. I'm also assuming 100bi cap games at at least a $4 rake. All that considered, $15/hr is pushing it. Most players who are patient and disciplined enough to win at that rate would have probably moved up or moved on long before they were able to win at that rate. i.e, maybe they were beating 1/2 for $12/hr, and have since moved up or migrated online, and now if they were to move back to 1/2 theyd possibly beat it for $15/hr. blah

Thanks for the response 8o8. I appreciate the hypothesis. But more specifically I am thinking about making the move to Vegas and want to get an accurate grasp on what my winrate is at 2/5 to make certain if it is worthwhile for me to move to Vegas in the first place. Therefore, given the post that you linked, how many hours would be considered a ridiculous sample size? 2000+ hours? I need to make at bare minimum $40/hour for it to be worthwhile for me to make the move in the first place. I realize this is crushing the game at 2/5 (10BB/hr) and I hope that I can do that but I don't want to make the move and then find out, oops, I'm not going to make as much money at this as I thought that I would. I make about $32/hour at my full time job and with benefits and other compensation (paying my own health benefits), I would need to make at least $40/hour to make this move. So I am just wondering how much I can realistically expect to make and how many hours I need under my belt to prove it to myself that this can be done.

You seem to be implying that this isn't what I was talking about (e.g. 100bb cap over the long-term), which is confusing, because I mentioned both the 100bb cap and long-term results in my previous post that you just quoted...

We are both talking about the same thing - 100bb capped buyin 1/2 poker with standard rake for serious players over the long term. I don't think it's very hard for a serious player to beat the game for $15/hr over the long-term if they're playing the majority of their hours at peak times (nights/weekends). I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I am willing to bet you will not do this. Even if you do, you

If you play on the weekends/evening prime time you should be absolutely crushing the game to think about doing it full time. You will be playing at more off times, likely will not always play your A game, etc.

But if you can make $60/hour playing a mix of weekends and off-times over a 500 hour sample it may be worth thinking about.

I've only watched two of the "going to vegas to be a grinder" threads. Both of them were at 1/2 level and neither of them hit their goal. More like $3/hour instead of $20/hour.

If you do decide to do it, demonstrate your chops putting together a monster BR. If you're a winning enough player your first 500 hours should give you a $25,000++ bankroll. If you can take that first step, think about it. Otherwise only do it if you're willing to live on sardines and Ramen and work as a bellhop during the day for the experience of being in Vegas.

NB, if your job is $32/hour, you really want to aim for $60/hour to have equivalent. (with taxes, etc.).

Don't do it if you want the equivalent lifestyle. Jobs are secure.

Where is your home casino?

Some of these conversations are funny. It's like people are debating whether you can run a mile in seven minutes.

Your average 2+2'er can't. But there are people who can run MUCH faster.

Some can run a mile in FOUR minutes. Which is WAAAAAYYYY harder than running a 7 minute mile.

So, if you can win $15/hour at 1/2 great. That's a 7 minute mile.

But yes, folks can win way more than you can imagine possible. Just not many.

Well $60 an hour seems like overkill to me. My gross rate before taxes at my job is $31.86 per hour or 58K per year. Not great considering my age as I should be making more than that as I am in my mid 30's. But so far so good at 2/5, but I only have the time to play on the weekends. I am in Atlantic City almost every weekend. So I play at the Taj & Borgata as well as Bally's for some $1/$3 NLHE action too.

Not sure if you are correct that I have to make $60/hour for the equivalent lifestyle. I am pretty certain that I can have the equivalent lifestyle for less than that. But with paying for my own medical expenses and saving for retirement the bare minimum I would need is at least $40/hour.

its like $15/hr max at 1/2 over 1k+ hour samples with a few exceptions for the top 1% who crush it.

it's only going to decrease over time with the influx of skilled online players as well as standard fish/break evens naturally getting better over the years. Its conceivable the best live players will be making 9 or 10 per hour at 1/2 in the future.

I use a rule of thumb of contractors in my line making 2X per hour what staff make. But that assumes some "down time", etc.

I would keep track of your win rate over 500 hours but realize that weekends are "prime time".

Yep. Online poker took some pros out of the waters at live. But it also helped train a generation of better players. Now the original pros are back in, and the E-grinders.

I cant grasp the idea that people think crushing 1/2 is about 15/ hr. 1/2 is super easy guys.

obv we are saying not many people can beat it for more then 20-25 over long run.

so maybe ur one of the true greats, a natural, who even after a 30bi swing in what 1000 hours of play is still above 20/hour.

congrats man, im sure your gonna be in msnl in no time.

Thanks for the scarcasim... Nice!

I dont want to play MSNL... I would love to get back to Hi stakes Limit but there are no games.

No, that's not what a lot of people in this thread are saying:


To MK7749: If you're saying that the top 1% crush 1/2 for $20-25 an hour, then I agree. If you're saying the top 1% barely make $15/hr, then I disagree. There is a big difference between the top 1% struggling to make $15/hr and making well over $20/hr - the difference is not trivial.

rambler i was joking around trying to be a smartass. cap got it.

tbh i dont know and i dont even care about winrate, as long as i win more then i lose is the only thing i care about.

but logically there has to be people out there that are beating this game for a really good clip.

I play in a ridiculously soft .50/1.00 NL game on PokerPro tables. Peek times are the weekend nights which I rarely play because I generally choose to be with my family at those times. I play a few hours approximately twice a week after a daytime tourney. After reading about winrates at 1/2 NL, I decided to track my play. So far this year, I've made approx. $17.50 per hour over 50 hours. Sometimes I forget to write down how many hands I played, but if I go by an average of the average hands per hour (45), I've played in the neighborhood of 2250 hands. I have a hard time believing $15 an hour at 1/2 NL is terribly ungodly. It's not like I'm awesome, and I beat a game half the size for roughly that amount.

For the record, the LIVE .50/1.00 game is exponentially easier than 2-5 penny on Stars.

u ply on electronic tables. slightly different since you will be seeing more hands and such im assuming. but overall 50 hours doesnt seem like much i think i could easily put in 20-24 hours in a week in about 2-3 sessions. so just 2 weeks worth cant be a good enough size.

but congrats on beating the game, i dont like the electronic tables tbh but ive only played them on a cruise ship.

I always heard the win rate for low stakes pros is 10-40BB/hr.

I know people who say they track their play and win $75/hour at deep stack 1/2 NL.

Those are the 4-minute mile folks.

Less than top 1%.

At a newly opened casino in a wealthy area I could see this being possible for the first 6-12 months for 1% or more of the population.

With online grinders going live, it may be significantly lower (until online gets legal).

Yeah, that makes sense. No way players get 45 hph with a live dealer. I didn't think about that. Thanks, but LOL on the bolded. The play is very bad. Congrats not necessary. I'd accept condolences if I couldn't beat it.

I don't mind the electronic tables at all. I learned online, so it feels like home in a lot of ways. I like having the real people to read though.

I have a question about moving up limits. The casino I play at has screwy caps which are as follows:

1/2 Min 40 Max 100
2/5 Min 200 Max 600

I have been crushing the 1/2 game and am looking at the possibility of moving up to 2/5. I understand bankroll management just fine and that people recommend 20-50 BI depending on various factors. What I'm not sure about is how that translates into real world tables with variable buy ins. Say I'm running conservative bankroll management and want a 50 BI roll to move up to 2/5. Should I wait until I have the full 30k for Max buy in? Or am I better off jumping in when I get to 10k and only buying in for 200 and building from there? Either way, I'm running the same 50 BI despite playing the same game. And even if I wait to run it as a 250 BI, 250 BI at 2/5 is equivalent to what I'm already doing at the 1/2 tables anyway, so it seems very much worthwhile for me to move up and play short stacked earlier rather than waiting forever to buy in full stacked. Thoughts?

Why wait until you have BR at higher level. Just make sure you have 1/2 BR you need, and take shots when you have a couple/few 2/5 bi extra.

Yeah, I get this, but the point is that the game I'm playing is already only 50 bbs Max, so even staying at 1/2 current game I'm playing short stacked. I'm not sure if you noticed that the Max BI on the 1/2 is 100 and not the standard 200. Also buying in for 100 bbs would be less than the max at the 2/5. It seems like you didn't read the BI caps, which was the entire point of me thinking this might be worthwhile. It's no different than sitting down at a 1/2 table where many players are doubled up +.

And the 50 BI was entirely for example purposes. I'm way more of a take a shot with a stable base player.

I'm curious others thoughts. I hear folks talking about 20bi or 50 bi before moving up, but they talk about it as if they need that amount for the next level BEFORE they move up.

If I have 55 bi at 1/2 I'm more than fine taking my 5 bi for a shot at 2/5.

Is there a reason you'd really want to wait until you have 100 bi at 1/2 (50 at 2/5), for example, rather than taking a shot with a couple bi at the higher level but having a good BR for your fallback level?