Started playing £0.50/£1 NLH cash game a week and a half ago and these are my results so far:





Really happy with results so far as I'm just playing alongside being at University, so this kind of money is tons.

Don't think I'd get too excited about the $$'s yet, since you have < 60 hour sample (unreliable), and you've cashed in 9/10 sessions (unsustainable).

Unless it's some home game where maybe cashing ~90% of sessions for a decent amount is sustainable.

Yeah I realise my sample is really small and my winrate unsustainable, and I'm not the kind of person to get some inflated ego over a heater. Staying grounded and just hope I can keep winning. It pads out the small student loan I get.

1/2 rec player
Profit: 4485
Hours: 230
$/hr: 19.5

Graph:


Stats since I got my new phone and started to track them 10 months ago. Pretty happy with my results considering I started with a ~5BI downswing. About 50% of the hours are during non-ideal time slots due to my job restrictions. Looking into increasing my monthly hours to around 40-50 and playing during more optimal times (Friday and Saturday). Also thinking about building up a roll to maybe take some shots at 2/5, especially if my wr stays at ~9-10bb/hr.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using 2+2 Forums

Poker Income app question--does the app convert the "stakes" from small blind/big blind to small bet/big bet depending on if you're playing limit or NL? How would you enter a Spread Limit game?

Well said - hope I didn't come across too harsh. Good luck going forward.

Hmm even though i have way over 50 buyins, my risk of ruin is still 3%. Im not very knowledgeable regarding ror, does this mean if my bankroll never grew in size and my winrate never changed and i played for an infinite # of sessions, i have a 3% chance of going busto?


If so, i guess im ok with that. Afterall, my bankroll will grow, further reducing the chance of going bust, and if runbad, obviously i can always move down in stakes

Your statement on what that would mean is correct. What is your win-rate and standard deviation though? And what calculation/calculator were you using? Because 3% seems awful high for live if you have over 50 BI's.

Hey I make no money playing poker, do you think I could do this full time?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

Let me give you the address where play so I can evaluate. Bring your entire roll, k?

If you played for and infinite amount of sessions without adding to your bankroll you would eventually hit a 50 buy in downswing so your ROR would be 100%. For each buy in you add to your bankroll your ROR goes down.

Erm, but you also have a positive win-rate, so you can't assume that it only needs a 50-BI downswing for you to go bust. Like there's some % chance you go on a 50-BI downswing right away, and then some % chance that you win 20-BI's or whatever and go on a 70-BI downswing, but ofc once you start winning, it's much, MUCH harder to go bust (this assumes a growing bankroll - you don't take $$ out).

Edit: I think I misread the original question. Asking about if your BR never grew is sort of silly, right? Cause the whole point of having win-rate and standard deviation factor into the R-o-R is that if you win some it's harder to lose all of it. Bigger win-rate = smaller risk of ruin

Just finished an 8 hour session, winning £44 in a £0.50/£1 cash game.

Feels so dirty, may aswell have done a shift at maccies :P

i could not imagine going on a 50 buy-in downswing. that's $10K at $1/$2.

seems pretty impossible.

Seems unlikely but, if we are talking about an infinite amount of sessions it is assured. Everyone who has tried the martingale system thinks well it is unlikely to lose like 20 times in a row but if you keep playing eventually it happens.

This is a formula somebody posted earlier in this thread:


(Sd^2/2wr)*(1/br)= ror

So i just plugged in values:
Sd=292
Wr=42
Br=35000

((292^2)/84)*(1/35000)

1015/35000 ~ .03

Im not sure this is correct, you are implying we are assured of going busto when playing an infinite amount of sessions, which implies that risk of ruin is always 100% when playing an infinite amount of sessions.

If this is the case why calculate ror, why even play poker in the first place, were all assured of going busto, no matter our winrate, standard deviation, or bankroll size

Martingale is 50/50 and always doubling down your bet, so obviously it will have a 100% chance of busting, poor comparison...
Say we could make $1 everytime a dice will roll 6,5,4,3, or 2, and we lose $1 everytime it rolls 1. We have a $1000 bankroll. We project this scenario into infinity. Im pretty sure our risk of ruin is not 100%.

Risk of ruin means what is our risk of going busto, given 3 variables:
Winrate
Standard deviation
Bankroll

Lets use my numbers for example:
Wr 42
Std 292
Br 35000
And we come up with 3% ror

Now lets say i plan to play an infinite amount of sessions, but i must withdraw my winnings from my poker roll IF my roll exceeds 35000. Note i can still add profit to my roll, it just cannot exceed 35000. (This may be where our confusion stems from?)
Also i must play the same stakes and never move down, even if my roll gets dangerously low.

This forces the equation to remain static, and the 3% ror may then project into an infinite # of sessions.

I believe in that scenario, given an infinite # of sessions, my chance of going busto would be 3%, not 100% as you claim.

Like i said im not very knowledgeable regarding risk of ruin, this is just how i believe it works. I could be wrong. Im trying to make sense of what a 3% chance of going busto means. Does it mean 3% if i planned to play an infinite # of sessions given my parameters? Thats what i think it means, am i wrong?

I hope nobody takes what i posted as "truth" im just trying to make sense of ror. I could be totally wrong

losing 20 straight sessions is complete preventable.

i know it's not optimal, but if i lost 19 straight, i would make sure i got a win in the 20th.

how? as soon as i had a small win booked i'd leave. it is far from optimal and i don't care if it took 15 minutes ... i'd leave.

On the condition you never grow your bankroll (suppose you spend 100% of your winnings) and it is never bigger than 50 buy ins and you play and infinite number of sessions you will assuredly busto eventually. No one is ever going to play an infinite amount of sessions, this is all hypothetical.

He's saying that out of the millions of people who play poker, someone somewhere will have a 50 BI downswing at some point if they play an infinite number of sessions.

This is obviously not realistic since someone with even a 100 BI bankroll would probably quit poker before they lost 50 BI. But in theory, it is correct and makes sense.

That 3% is assuming you reinvest all your winnings, then as your bankroll increases your ROR decreases. Or as your bankroll diminishes you ROR increases.

But if you played an infinite number of sessions and tried to quit any time you got ahead, eventually you would get to 20 straight sessions where you lost your first hand.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using 2+2 Forums

yes, but i didn't say i was leaving after 1 hand, i said i was leaving after i was up $1. lol. i didn't say it made any sense either.

After more consideration....
Back to my dice example, maybe we are assured a 100% chance of going busto afterall? The definition of infinity is every possibility can and DOES occur, meaning rolling 1 on the dice 1000 times in a row isnt unlikely, but rather assured given we roll an infinite number of times. Damn does this mean every poker player is certain to bust their roll if they played to infinity?

So hypothetically speaking, if i played an infinite number of sessions and i reinvest 100% of my winnings, i would have a 3% chance of going bust? Or is it still 100% no matter what because infinite sessions implies ill run so bad eventually that ill bust my roll?