Explain.

Tbh the inverse is true where you are better off playing the same buyin you would at the WSOP but with smaller fields like 300 ish. No real correlation between ROI and field size.

Call me crazy, but where I'm from $29/hr > $24/hr. I'd think I mix of those games would be reasonable at least until the bigger game has the higher WR. Especially when you consider that the bigger game is being game selected and avoided when lineups aren't favorable. (Agree with the nitty BRM comments tho)

I'm saying to maximize the size of 1st place.

Optimal strategy (taking some liberty here, LDO) is to minimize the BI and simultaneously maximize the size of 1st place.

Is $100-200/ week really enough to warrant the stress that's involved with playing higher stakes?

Gross, but congrats on digging yourself out of it.

As for comments on your BR nittyness, I would think that having a clear head / being in a good frame of mind is pretty important and having a nitty BR would probably aid in this.

GgoodluckG

An objective for a young or inexperienced pro should be a relatively constant search for where their biggest edge exists along with the associated variance.

Johnny: He's currently winning more at 1/2. You and suited 4s are in agreement I think.

Something something sample size though. Wasn't he in here posting that he won 5 million bbs in a single 1 2 session recently? If that was at 2 5 instead then that wr would likely be much higher.

But yeah he should just play whatever he's comfortable with. If he's not comfortable due to the size of his br though then he's gotta fix that because he's got more than enough imo.

50 buyins per level you play at is a good brm johnny and is exactly the brm i follow and always advise others to follow.

I should probably clarify my previous comment a little since there may be some confusion. When I say my 2/5 WR fell I more accurately meant my "loss rate" since that is all that happened. I know session winning % doesn't mean much in isolation, but for sake of argument across 180 sessions (1200 hours) at 1/2, 1/3, 2/5 and 10/10 I had a session win % of ~67% and they are pretty constant across all stakes.

During the downswing that began with a 10/10 cooler and continued unabated into 2/5 the results are sickening. Over my last 27 sessions at 2/5 I have won 10/27 (37%) for -$11,050 over 150 hours or -$73.4/hr.

That is correct, but those are just my actual observed results and not what I believe to be my hourly expectation. I believe my 2/5 hourly expectation is significantly greater than my 1/2 expectation, the problem is my observed results at 2/5 over the last few months have been a variance ****storm.

$100-200 may not be, but $1000 certainly would be. If I think my full-time 1/2 expectation is around $30/hr and full-time 2/5 >$50/hr then I should gravitate towards 2/5. Eventually there will be no alternative to putting in more hours at 2/5, but when running terrible for months on end I'd rather just stock the coffers with the easier and lower variance money.

It's hard to justify full-time hours at 2/5 when running at a nearly -$75/hr clip. But what I can do is continually build the BR with a nice game mix and when I finally ride out the negative variance wave at 2/5 be on extremely solid footing moving forward and hopefully never have to go through the misery again that was a full BR rebuild at 1/2 and 1/3.

Call me negative nelly but I dont see any way possible that a guy who had a 650 hr break even streak has an expected win rate of $50/hr playing 2/5. I know variance is a bitch, but someone with that big of an edge should NEVER go that long breaking even.

Something is/was wrong during that streak.
1) Trying to win too many pots by running over the table with a horrible image?
2) Trying to win every big pot?
3) Calling too many river bets because you cant believe you have second best hand again?
4) Too loose preflop?
5) Too many semibluffs with draws?

It could be any number of reasons, but I bet if you had just tightened up and let the game come to you, results wouldve been much different.

Negative Nelly, please work on your reading comprehension as it was made abundantly clear. Lose 15k+ very quickly at 10/10 and 2/5 and grind it back at 1/2 while still losing your 2/5 shots. That's how you break even for 650 hours when only 150 of those hours were spent at 2/5.

I don't think you do know. I've seen your graph and it's clear you have never experienced a prolonged stretch of negative variance.

If I recall correctly (???), Duke recently (within 2 months?) posted a giraffe / stats with fairly impressive overall results that included a decent breakeven period.

See post#14598, was a ~300 hour breakeven stretch and a ~500 hour of below minimum wage.

G650hoursain't****,imoG

Welcome to the club Johnny.

Those long stretches of breakeven or slightly negative running really suck. I've discussed this ITT a couple of times before (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...l#post49452424). And while my overall winrate is less impressive than I'd like it to be, I haven't seen many similarly large samples. It's easy to find a 500 hour sample that supports whatever story you'd like to tell. Although as a rec player that takes me about a year to cover. At least you're getting that volume in over less than half the time, which helps some mentally.


A long stretch like that is rarely *entirely* just variance. But it is still very possible to make the right decisions for 200 hours and just get reamed from behind every time you're in a big pot.

My guess is that most people make about the same amount of mistakes on their upswings as they do their downswings, and yet they typically go unnoticed / unquestioned during the upswings.

GjustaguessG

The alternative to playing MTTs for me is not playing cash though. It's sitting on the beach drinking margaritas.


Didn't you know? Everyone that posts here thinks they can win 10bbs+/hr.

650 BE hours equates to what, 20k hands? Definitely a standard stretch online. Live is kinda weird due to dealing with many more knuckledraggers. But from personal experience it seems entirely plausible...

650 hr break even totally plausible for a "winner".

(I'd say its more like 15,000-18,000 hands.)

@johnnybuz

Give up 1/2, you have enough for 2/5

They make more mistakes on the upswing. That's why downswings are good for the soul. They cleanse you. If they don't kill you, you come out stronger.

Truer words haven't been typed

Somewhere between 99-100% of players think their true expected WR moving forward is greater than their actual past results, regardless of sample size. Ironically, there may be a correlation between extreme delusion in this area and future success.

Maybe. Maybe not. I lean not.

When they're running well and winning, most players seem to be more calm and content. They seem to make better decisions and think more clearly.

But when things go badly and they take a series of tough beats ... Some go on insane monkey tilt trying to make up for losses and become spewy. Others go into a shell and try to minimize their losses (by raising too much to protect, or folding too much to save chips), which murders their winrates.

I don't see "winners tilt" being as big of a potential leak.

Although I do agree with the sentiment that a downswing really helps force us to analyze our play.

The downswing part is what I meant was true

Sure, the biggest leak of them all, tilt, is encountered mostly at the downswing level. A tilted roulette wheel cannot be overcome though. It can only be avoided.

I was speaking more towards fundamental mistakes. Bet/calling too much, check/calling too much, not betting turn enough, playing AJo UTG, not 3betting enough, 3 betting too much, playing OOP too much, not paying attention to stack depth, not making love to your button and hating every other position, etc.

You get away with a lot of this stuff on upswings. You think AJo is a fine open UTG. You think ATo is a fine 3b from the small blind. And you run good. You flop J23r with your AJ. You flop K62 in your 3bet pot. And you think you're awesome.

Phil Galfond, way way back, said that most really good players had to run good in the beginning, then run bad. That was the perfect combination to make you confident/hungry enough to want to continue, but cautious enough to self analyze and desire to learn.