Note to mods: I have a question here and I think this is where I'm supposed to post it, if this should be moved elsewhere, please move it.

It was referenced a few pages ago that most "pro" players don't put in enough hours at the table. Are there reasons why the players arn't putting in 30-40 hours a week? I'm thinking that it might have something to do with the unstructured nature of the "job", and the crazy hours on the weekends.

And no, answering this question will not suddenly inspire me to tell my boss to go to hades, cast the die, cross the rubicon, or take the red pill. I am just curious. I actually like my job.

because people don't play poker to be miserable

That's a good question actually. I'll start off by tossing in a few possibilities:

1. Few can sustain the long hours in an environment such as the casino and deal with all of the bullcrap.

2. Most people aren't choosing poker so they can do the same thing as a 9-5 job.

I do have hm but my sample size is lolbad and my game is changing too much to say something about winrates. But tnx for the advice guys, guess i am not going to do it in that case and stick to online.

here is another what is possible at live poker request.

I'm playing online NL50 (partially NL100) with a winrate of ~5bb over 100k Hands this year. I have a real job and play not that much per month (15 -20k). Therefore its more a hobby instead of a part time job and I'm at the point that without putting more time in it and the toughness of the games I'm not improving anymore.

In addition I put some money from online to play my local live games. Unfortunatelly, the lowest limits to play (legally) is 2/4 (Europe). Because of Bankroll reasons my Buy-In for the game is 300 and I move the location when getting really deep (>250-300bb). The good thing is the outstanding low rake - its ~2% capped by 6 Bucks. The level of the players is compared to online very low. Lot's of fish and regs who wouldn't beat NL10 online. Unfortunatelly in the beginning it's often short stacked. Min buy-in is 25bb.

Now my question to you more experienced guys. What is possible in a game like this? I do have a very high win rate on a tiny sample size and therefore I know this isn't sustainable.

Another negative aspect is that I have only a few games running 1-3 tables (only a few hours in the evening) and lots of regulary (bad) players who might adapt to me. For example, I saw a fishy player tigthen up his game against me because he had some bad/expensive experience.

What are your points of figuring out your egde at the table live to gain a good win rate. Is it enough to have only two fishs and 7 weak to medium regs at a table? Online would it be a dream scenario but is it enough live?

I'm really thinking of reducing my hours in my current job (that would be possible) and start putting some more hours in live poker play.

Thanks for replies

SB

I have a pretty small sample size in Europe but in the casino outside Madrid I was playing 1/2E and it was the craziest game ive ever played in.

10 to the flop some hands on limps, open raises to 50 with QJ and only 50 behind, people calling all in on the river with one pair. People check/calling flushes...

I can't imagine how to even estimate what win rate is possible in a game like that. I won 600E which was around $900 in ~3-4 hours. I ran alright, but nothing spectacular. Just stuff like shoving my AK, AQ, 88+ hands over the top of a 10E raise with 6 callers behind was ridiculously profitable. Half the time i was flipping, half the time i had them dominated. I got to limp a ton of hands in late position, it was just bizarre.

I'd imagine in a 2/4E game there you could easily win 10BB/hr and I wouldn't be shocked if you could win 15-20.

Does your game play crazy like this also?

Total differently. I had an evening where I got a preflop all-in call with j3s for 120bb (he obviously flopped a flush) and a blind 3bet to 50 and 3 callers before cards where dealt. But there are also days where you have some nitty shortstackers and medium regs and you have no alternative to move.

the question is also how important is my life inexperience. I'm sure to be above most of the players in strategic points of view but I might be not that good in reading/giving tells etc. How would you factor that into a winrate?

I wouldnt worry too much about the tells. My suggestion would be to figure out when the games are good and cut back work hours around those times and avoid the nitty reg games altogether.

Set a goal, say I want to make 5,000E or 10,000E playing these types of games. If you can do that then proceed from there. If you can't beat the horrible players for a lot, why even bother learning how to play when the games are tough and you have to grind and deal with variance?

I play full time. Most "pros" that I see on the scene are not particularly skilled and are mostly posing (when they are at the casino they are not playing but walking aound and being seen. Obviously there are a handful that are highly skilled and logging serious hours - but sooo many just want to play the part of the rock star and not do the work.

That being said I know that I am not a rockstar - I'm a bar band...I cant write a hit song but I can play most tunes. And to make it as a bar band you have to go out and WORK your ass off.

You're confusing pro, someone that plays poker for a living, with poker celebrity.

I should have been more specific in my earlier post. By "pro" I meant someone that finances a majority of their lifestyle of off playing poker.

We don't get celebrities where I play. We make do with trust fund kids and grocery store owners.

I see so many people in my room just walking around talking/sweating friends.

I think a majority of them are broke though.

This. If I'm able to play 25-30 hrs/wk and still pay the bills (and live in the style that I'm accustomed to), then I see no reason to play more. I would bet the farm that the majority of people working 40+ hrs/week for someone else would work less if given the option.

so i tried to set aside a poker bankroll for poker... which is around 4K...

and the ideal game i would like to play is 2-3 NL 100-300$ BI

so realistically my bankroll is pretty small to buy in for max... which is 100 BB.. but i wouldnt feel comfortable for buying in with anything but max...

but my question is.. one of my buddies decieded to stake half the max bi with me.. in exchange for half the profits... i understand hes getting teh same amount of cash for no work... but its lets me play a better game for a cheaper price.. and ill just take this as an oppurtunity to gain some knowledge and slowbly build my bankroll so i can play on my own... 8k would be cool.. maybe 10k...

any ideas...??

With a little over 13 BIs I'd just play on my own. You can build your roll off that.

Cash game staking usually doesn't work out. But if it makes you feel more comfortable go for it. It's a good deal for you. He's the one really taking all the risk anyways.

seems like a fine idea, but just remember that youre splitting the profits so your bankroll is going to grow half the speed it would normally when you do have winning sessions

4k for 2/3 is ~13 BIs which isnt terrible, but obv not well protected

imo i would just grind it up by myself and take 100% profits/losses... set limits for yourself like stopping after you win/lose 2-3 buyins

Do not take the deal, things will go sour. It always does.

Grind it up yourself, feel good about accomplishing something on your own.

The rewards of that alone outweighs the problems with a stake.

i would mix it up play 1/2 and 2/3....

If you lost a couple BI on 2/3, move down to 1/2 and grind it up again...

wouldn't take the staking deal...

You have plenty to play 1/2 and mix in taking shots at the higher stakes when you are winning. Say you get up a BI @ 1/2 then move over to a 2/3 game using some of your profit to subsidize your play until you are comfortable with your bankroll at the larger stakes. I wouldn't go for the staking deal personally, you just aren't going to win that much @ 2/3 to be able to give away half of your profits. You're much better off playing at a lower stake and keeping all of your money.

In order to take this deal you.need a make up.

make up?

+1

Imo, don't trust anyone in the poker room about what their earn is, how much they've made etc. Unless they're someone you're close with and whose game you respect from watching them for a while they're very likely to be totally FOS.

I see so many people in the poker room that are there every day that are legends in their own minds that talk so much s- and all they do is make mistakes, complain about fish when they lose etc.

I'm sure this extends to the higher limits, because I see people at 2/5 that claim they play 5/10 that are bad but they are in the room every day playing.

this is by no means what % of make up I advise, I honestly am not an avid staker. But you need a make up for this to be worth your time.


For example your package is $8000 total.

You are selling 50% at 1.1 mark up.

50%=4400 (4000*1.1)


You would have to add in over "X" amount of hours, if online would be hands.

dude, i'd just play the 1/2 and built your roll up and move up and take shots when you are running good and beating the game consistently-shouldnt be hard, 1/2 live is filled with brain-transplant donors/mouth breathers. Sounds like you are rolled up enough for 1/2. Take shots at 2/5 if you run good(pretty easy game too). I wouldnt think about a staking deal unless you are playing horribly, running bad, and flaming your roll to under 8 buy-ins for live 1/2(if you are decent you be able to make this up with some time and leak/tilt adjustments). I've never played staked and the idea of splitting my profits unless absolute last case option makes me cringe.