I live in a non-regulated poker market (Texas; no casinos) As such, the rake here is extraordinarily high (15 dollar max rake, 2 dollar high hand, 1 dollar monthly freeroll) which is even smaller rake than the other underground poker rooms here. Currently averaging 46.15/hr in this game over 52 hours, continue playing and monitor win rates or is the consensus that a rake this size is unbeatable? Other poker options involve 2 hours commute, which makes the expenses higher than even a 15 dollar rake.

The game I was in was the 3/5 at Muckleshoot. They have no 1/2 game there so anyone wanting to play low stakes NL has to play 3/5 and most of those guys had no business in a 3/5 game. I played it 2 nights in a row (obviously not a lot of hours) and it was very soft. Shockingly soft.

If you are referring to me as a nut peddler, Ive been called lots of things but a nut peddler certainly isn't one of them.

(Yes I realize its spread limit and not actual NL, but close enough)

What are the typical stack sizes on the table? My guess is they'd have to be huge and belong to some pretty bad players for a $15 rake to be beatable.

GcluelessrakenoobG

STDEV / WR = 5 makes me think something is calculated wrong. FWIW - the poker tracking apps calculate it incorrectly.

The best ratios I have ever seen for live poker are ~10:1.. maybe approaching 8:1 at the very very best.

(can't tell where that original quote is or who posted it - but I am curious if legit 5:1 or another app miscalc?)

Some people probably dont think its important at all. Some people only care about win rate which is fine, but if that ratio is very low that means that you are making money with a lot less variance.

Most people with patience and some general knowledge of poker can beat the game for a small amount by nut peddling, but their win rate will be low.

Other more skilled people can beat the game at a higher rate by mixing it up more, value betting thinly, getting into more medium to big pots than the nut peddler....but their StdDev is going to be higher. They will have bigger swings. They will build big stacks more often and they will also have bigger downswings.

The people will a lower StdDev / win rate ratio will tend to win more money compared to the risk they are taking with their money. They will also tend to need less total hours played before having confidence that their win rate is closer to their true long term win rate. A player with a massive StdDev might need 2000+ hours, where a player with a lower StdDev may only need 750 hours before their win rates stay fairly constant.

Whats your win rate/hr and your StdDev/hr?

Its quoted from my post. I'm pretty sure I went thru this once before but if you tell me how to manually calculate it, I will be happy to do it and post my results.

I may be wrong but I think you would need your play broken into 1 hour blocks to get a semi-accurate std dev/hour. purely speculating here, but it would seem a poker tracking app would only look at each session as a "block" and would never be able to account for the actual swings that happen within a session, and therefore, an unsustainable hot streak would also reveal itself in an unsustainably low std. deviation, on account of so many of your sessions being winners, if that makes sense.

May be that's it then. I am using the stddev poker income pro gives me.

I mean, I've got 400 hours in poker income (which is nothing) and my STDEV / WR is like 3. but I'm also probably running unsustainably good over those 400 hours.

Average buy in is ~300, there's a few guys that buy in for 100 (play fit/fold c-bet almost always takes pot down, will play multiple buy ins, they usually lose 300 prior to quitting). A regular that buys in for 300 (calling station). A regular that buys in for 500 (good TAG). A couple whales that buy in for 500 (not usually there, but when they are they're good for losing 2-3 buyins). The average table is 5 short stacked nits, 2-3 100bb+ buyin calling stations and 2-3 decent players (100bb+). *editing as I realized I never mentioned the stakes (1/3NL mostly hold'em, one night it's round of hold'em round of Omaha, most nights 10 handed, Monday nights 7 handed)

so a total max of $18 per hand including bad beat and promo? yikes. at what pot size does it cap out?

there could be $400+ coming off the table every hand with that structure. it's going to be really difficult for anyone to be a long term winner in that game.

Im not a math expert like some guys here. I'm just looking at the StdDev/hr that "RunGood" gives me. I know that about a month ago someone gave me the formula to use and I verified that RunGoods number was correct. I agree though that I dont understand how it calculates StdDev/hr when it only knows session by session results and not actual hour by hour results. My session win % is very high at 76%, but I dont think that's unsustainable. It was at 78% for the first 100 sessions when I posted all my numbers here and its still right there after 215 sessions.

It seems like what I should be looking at would be StnDev/session....but there is a different number for that. Maybe thats what Bip meant when he referenced 10 being a very low number?

How many hours do you have (MikeStarr)?

A bit over 900

A good player on a decent heater can produce low STDEV/WR calcs.. so it is not necessarily a mis-calc. What are the stats?

Hours: 900

WR: ? (? Do you only play one stake? If not, did you normalize your results by bb?)

STDEV: ?

Average session length: ?

How is it soft?

It means nothing. True WR more important than your standard deviation. Like playing a massive whale is often times way more ev and way more variance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about running KK into AA? We don't count those? Or losing QQ to AK?

How many such player profile are at your table? How often? What if they have draws, do they fold?

Ya, I am one of them and I don't think you know what variance free means.

What does that even mean?

It's almost like saying number of yards per attempt is more important than completion %.

Well there is actually a decent amount of football metrics that imply that to be the case like dvoa. Our goal is to garner maximum ev, not to have a consistent graph. So yeah if variance is high or low it doesn't say anything about how good you are at poker

All it tells you is what type of style of poker you play

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct, but you can't have "true" WR without consideration of STDEV...

What is true WR anyway?

Your theoretical long term WR, which of course in live poker we will pretty much never know. But what your true WR is should not be affected by the amount of variance you have.

All variance does is change the amount of hours until you begin to feel more comfortable hypothesizing about where you stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it's shockingly soft, can't you read?

Why not? If you cannot actually know your true WR, why isn't an estimation of confidence level of your session W/L at least part of an indicator?

Isn't that the idea if you can never know what your true WR is?

Ill get back to you on this. I have a few different stakes and need to sort thru my database.