I think so, yes. Maybe someone else will chime in with the math of times rake vs. percent, but timed $8/hr. doesnt seem too bad. Timed rake was much more common when NL started hitting cardrooms 15 years ago and I used to pay $12/hr. I still did OK back then. I think $8/hr. is probably less than what you normally pay in rake at 10%. It will hurt good players more than fish because the fish pay more rake due to them being involved in and winning more pots in general, but it sounds like a beatable structure.

I was thinking that even though it directly helps the fish more, because they are paying much less due to being involved in so many hands, it indirectly helps us by keeping more of the bad players' money in play.

30 hands at $2.6 average vs $8 x 9 players.

Timed seems to be better at first glance.

I just passed 100 hours of 1/2 and i thought about sharing my experience !

im definately not crushing lol but im still learning and getting confortable and everything !

I think i should play shorter session ! These are my best results !

And as they said in HIMYM, nothing good happens after 2am lol :P

Some stats :

15 sessions
Total profit : 372
Total hours : 104
Average number of hours per session : 7 hours
Longest session : 15 hours
Shorter session : 1 hour
Biggest win : 315 $
Biggest lost : 515 $
60 % of winning sessions

Avg profit/hr : 23 $ / hr
Real profit/hr : 3,60 $ / hr



Ill keep you updated at 250+ hours !

^^^

Nice job!

Would advise you to have a 2 buyin ($400) max loss per session tho and stick to it

Good advice! But i just feel like when the table is good and im still playing good, i dont know why i should leave!!

I just feel like its more important to leave if im feeling too tired and playing poorly like after playing 10hours+ raising all broadways from all position to get action haha or just do stupid move

The thing I found out (after+6000hrs live play) is that you can play badly, sometimes very badly, and not really realize it till later when you reflect on it from a clean mind.

Most poker players of course say "yeah, but not me".... But trust me, yeah you.

There's always another day, another session, another great table another day.

Also: No matter how good you're playing, when you're losing big people notice it and play better against you. They play with more confidence and more aggression. And when losing you unconsciously play more tentative and impatient=bad recipe for poker

My opinion is that you're thinking about this the correct way. Arbitrary dollar amount stop loss makes no sense to me.

You are off to a good start. Good luck!

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

$5k is an arbitrary dollar amount as well. Should someone stop after losing $5k in a session? A stop loss number necessarily must be arbitrary. Doesn't make them bad.

I'm not a big advocate of stop loss either but it works for some people. I certainly don't think it's bad for someone new and feeling their way around live poker. Obv bankroll and tilt susceptibility are considerations. Both of which are issues a newer player may not have a handle on.

Personally If the game is good, I'm playing well and having fun I see no reason to quit just cuz I lost a few big pots or whatever. If it's a tiresome string of hands like feet and whiffed flops and disgusting runouts and the games not that awesome anyway I'm probably not having fun either so I'll bounce.

As for the amount of the stop loss, yes it's arbitrary to an extent but some amounts would seem more reasonable to me than others just based on my gut feel regarding intrasession variance. That may vary by game and hero style but 2 100bb bullets seems a bit too small to me.

Not saying it's not right for someone else.

The value in a hard stop-loss is that it gets you off the table when you're too tired or stubborn to realize that you're actually playing like ****. Yes yes yes, if you're actually playing well and just losing 80/20 spots, it probably makes sense to stay anyway. But many times when you think you're getting coolered by running into the tops of peoples ranges or otherwise losing, you're more likely to just be overmatched or subtlety tilting.

Being on a little run-bad in a session can also change other players' perceptions of you. It can kill your FE if they think you're just on tilt or un-lucky. But that can also get you paid if you have a value hand. Regardless, it can require an adjustment that not everyone is capable of making.

I think a 2-BI "get your ass up and talk a quick walk" rule is a good one. Give you time to evaluate your play and the table and decide if it's really worth staying.

Hard stop loss feels like it should be more like 4-BI if you've already passed your 2-BI self evaluation.

But I could see the value in a lower one for newer players.

Quitting after 8 hours is arbitrary too, but I do it. The point is to tie your ending to something tangible like money lost or hours played, which correlates to a degredation in your mental state. Its too subjective to just say "I play until Im tired or on tilt" because its too difficult to recognize those things. But if you quit after a big loss or lots of hours you can avoid thise situations.

I bail when I'm stuck $600, because I recognise that I'm not in a good place after that kind of a loss. Yes it can suck walking away from a good game but I have a nice home and a fridge full of cold beers to look forward to. Walking there and then is a lot better than potentially spunking off another $1K and then wondering what I'm doing with my life as I finally do the walk of shame with all the other degenerate losers at 3 in the morning.

But, I'm also only 250 hours into live poker, give me 1K hours and a more reliably proven track record, my mental state might be different and I may then tolerate bigger losses. Stop losses are just a tool, if you don't need them, more power to you.

Hey guys.. These are my stats from live 1/3 over last 2 months... Is this below, at or above average? Need some feedback tysm

If you are winning your results are by definition above average.

Belongs in w/r thread tho.

Too late. =)

And yes, you are doing quite well all things considered.
The sample size isn't the end all be all, but you can rest easy at night knowing that you are likely doing something right and you will probably continue to beat the field the way you are playing.

Just make sure to not get complacent.

500 hours in 2 months?! woah..

Yeah, I didn't even notice that part.
You're averaging 9 hours a day 7 days a week playing?

Or if you're playing 5 days a week and trying to have a life the other 2 days of the week, you're playing 12 hours a day. Seems like a lot.

91 sessions in 2 months...

has to be multiple double session days?...or maybe he started a new log session if he table changed?

Or he exported his sessions into a csv file, added session in the spreadsheet manually and the imported them back in, causing RunGood to double count session, which is will do

Solid results, and way to bounce back from the brutal downswing.

Anything in the positives shouldn't be underappreciated. Whether you are above average / below average totally depends on the game you are playing in. If it's a tough game, these are outstanding top notch results. If it's an easy game, then perhaps not outstanding. But it's also only 500 hours, and so far you're winning at a good clip.

Ggoodluck!G

When I was grinding 1/2 my longest 2 month stretch was ~550 hours, so I don't doubt that its real.

Yes, it is a lot. But back then it didnt feel like working at all and was still new and exciting. I can still put in long sessions but get burnt out after a few days and have no drive to just put in these insane 70+hr weeks anymore.

It's actually 2.5 months to be precise. And I've been playing almost everyday.

I used to start/stop sessions multiple times in a day sometimes, or play a little of 2/5, hence the 91 sessions.

I actually feel I could do a lot better if it were not for 1 or 2 mega-spew sessions of $1-1.5k.

Very impressive, where do you play?

I've heard around $10-15 an hour playing 1/2 or 1/3 means you're on the right track. Great job.