He didn't say anything regarding knowing if we have an edge advantage (it's pretty clear most of us do at ****** infested tables).

I think he's saying that we'll be lucky to have any real handle on our winrate (or potential maximum winrate) even after a lifetime's worth of playing. My very comparable 1000 hour vs 2000 hour results compared against my totally different 3000 hour results also seems to suggest this.

GhopeIrunwellduringmylifetimeG

It depends on where you're at. There are plenty of rooms where the number of recs, OMC, etc. outnumber "pros" 20-to-1. My local room draws from about 700,000 and there isn't more than a handful of "pros." Probably less.

Even most people that play all the time aren't any good.

Variance calculations have already taken into account that you didn't play every hand though. If a winning player ran a simulation only on the hands he played his winrate over those hands would be enormous compared to the typical winrates we use. So "summing it up" that way is no different than just doing a regular comparison of two 11.5k hour stretches wrt variance.

Edit: So, say you have a 10bb per hour winner and you want to look at it through the how he ran when he vpip glass. Let's say he has a 15% VPIP. That means he's a 75bb per hour winner now if he's only being dealt hands he's vpiped. Assuming 30 hands per hour that means he's winning at 250/100! So even if his standard deviation is huge over those hundred hands, which it will be, it's not going to be anywhere near enough to send his earnings too far off track over 100000 hands.

To be fair you play 1/3 exclusively, yes?

There's very few regions where the 1/2 or 1/3 game has any real % saturation with pro's aside from like, Vegas, because anybody good enough to crush normally moves up in stakes or is capable enough of making more $ at a real job so they just do it part time.

When you start moving up the stakes, the amount of pro's per table increases. Funnily enough, it can actually be a bell curve in many instances, where mid-stakes has the most amount of pro-to-rec, and then in the nosebleeds you'll get only a few with a bunch of very wealthy businessmen (barriers to entry obv).

1/3 is usually the only game spread. 1-2-5 omaha mix is sporadic and I rarely play that.

It's also likely the 1/3 game I play is one of the best in the country.

I'm also not a pro fwiw.

No way is daytime win rate capped at 4BBs/hr.

pokahguy needs to study statistics.

Everyone else needs to learn the difference between bb and BB.

YGO - the pro to rec ratio trend does not reverse after mid stakes... it gets dramatically worse. A lot of high stakes games are 6~8 pros and 1~3 "fun" player(s). There are rare exceptions to this, but it has nothing to do with stakes, it has to do with private/hosted/arranged games. (edit - never mind - see you wrote the same thing)

In a mid-size market, the biggest game will have the 5+ best players in the market in it.

The daytime games are full of retirees. They are anything but action packed.

big yawn....so much pie in the sky and how many angels can you balance on the head of a pin in the current state of this thread

This x1000

Back to giraffes of real results rather than conjecture

These guys are crushable at lower vol w an ABC Donkey-Crusher strategy of just raising IP and bet/folding 1-2 streets.
Sure it's not the mythical 15bb/hr late night donkey fest... But using a pretty snoozer IP LAG strat, OMC/recs will give up a low Vol 4-6bb/hr. And if you're paying the bills off of poker, 8-16 daytime hours a midweek isn't so crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rule proposal for December:

Post your own results before posting assertions about win rates.

Exactly what I said. 4BB/hr is not the ceiling for daytime games. You just have to know how to adjust. They dont fight back unless they have a big hand and they dont get big hands that often.

I've deleted a post by pokahguy and all responses to it, and banned him from the thread. Those of you who saw it should be aware that this type of posting will not be tolerated in this thread. If you are unsure why, please read the pop-up with the rules of the thread again. If you didn't see it, just be aware that any "lol at you" type posting will get you banned.

That said, feel wrath, YGOchamp, and others, please remember the guidelines that say don't fight back against posting you think breaks the posting guidelines. Just hit report and keep the back and forth out of the thread.

I don't think he deserved a ban. Prior to his last post all he was saying was live full ring is a variance fest which measures who has run hotter over a statistically insignificant number of hands (which sounds accurate to me).

I used to scoff at GG because I thought his 1/3 game passed him by, and while I still do think he is overly nitty/MUBsy and misses value routinely across multiple streets, there is something to be said for his 0-1000 vs. 1000-2000 vs. 2000-3000 hour sample sizes.

I was also of the ilk that variance was some abstract esoteric concept that could simply be willed away by volume and positive thinking, and for 1000 hours or so that is how it behaved. But the more volume I play (and I think I've put in more volume than 99% of active posters in LLSNL over the last 12-24 months) the more I find myself agreeing with his general thesis: that live full-ring is a massive variance fest where obtaining a "true" win rate is impossible and the people arguing for or against are falling on opposite ends of the variance spectrum.

If you guys remember, a year ago I was floating ignorantly bliss on cloud 9 professing my belief that $50/hr at 1/2 and $90/hr at $1000 cap 2/5 was attainable at part-time and exclusively peak hours (which I still kind of believe if you are only playing 15-20 hours per week at peak times while having a lucrative full-time job that covers the bills and then some).

2016 was the year of discovering how different it is to be playing at the rec/serious reg level with a full-time job and the full-time eat-what-you-kill training-wheels-are-off no-income-on-the-side level. Unfortunately my learning lesson overlapped with "first experiences in once-in-a-lifetime negative variance" that questions your faith in mathematics and the very nature of EV and whether it's possible to run standard deviations above or below EV over 1 year, multiple years and lifetime periods (which I now believe it is due to statistically insignificant sample sizes in "big pots").

Fair enough Garick

What is the buy in structure for the 5/5 43.1 WR you are talking about?

This is so unbelievably important and something most people have a hard time focusing on, especially when they are sunrunning. This value that you miss, and probably could care less about when everything is going your way, is exactly the value that you are "banking" against the inevitable downswing.

Without this value, the downswings can be long, dark, and brutal beyond your imagining.

You simply cannot be so afraid of value owning yourself at times that it causes you to miss value against V's range.

That wasn't what got him banned. Those posts are still in the thread. The post I deleted was "lol at <person> for disagreeing with me. He's just a sun-runner who..." type stuff. This is a clear violation of Rule #2 in this thread.

2/5 nlh straddle from any where
10% 5$ max
1$ jackpot drop
200-1k

Serious Question:

If live FR is such a massive variance fest why is it that of all the people who I discuss poker with whose game I really respect not a single one does not have a top shelf win rate. Meaning that I apparently have zero poker buddies that are not life sun runners at full ring live poker

+1

I know who the best 5-10 players are in my room. Its pretty easy to tell by playing with them after a few dozen hours. Of course they all go thru some variance swings occasionally but in the end they will always by the biggest winners because they are the best players, not because they are the luckiest.

I recently asked a 2+2er that plays in my room who he thinks the best players are and most of his names overlapped with mine.

Depends for sure on your game, but absolutely this.
A bunch of regs/nits will give up the $$, they just do it slower.
So I find my ceiling well under 10bb in those games, but personally I can enjoy the resistance free 4-6BB/hour mostly coming from FE (and assuming I'm losing a bunch at showdown due to not running well and their range to call 1-2 barrels>>>>my range to bet 1-2 barrels)

Variance is real. That you think you're running like ass and pulling in a phenom 43.1 hourly is just not comprehended by closer-to-BE players.

If the expected WR is high enough, Variance determines how much you win, not whether you win or get crushed. However, to get to that level, someone need to be a serious crusher at the specific game/stake (EV >10bb hourly), which most winners aren't (and there are games tough enough where I posit it is not possible to win at >10bbHourly--2/5NL ain't one of em).

I give respect to anyone who can beat poker for >0bb/hr it already puts them in the top 10% of players who show up--but for most winning players dealing with rake, variance can very much determine if they win or lose over 1K hours.

Funny parts about variance are:

-If you have never been a long term winning player, you think those who win on a consistent basis are only doing so because of massive heater(s).
-If your WR is 4bb/hr, you think those who win more are on a massive heater(s).

And yet majority of losing players are so willing to accept the notion that certain players are winners, especially those that they think play similarly as they do...I wonder why.

Most people can't win at a higher WR because their way of thinking about the game is capped, something that is very difficult for people to comprehend or acknowledge.

------------------

FWIW, these two simple variables are what I think will determine WR ceiling:

1. Average money on the table
2. Skill level

If you are highly skilled and there is bunch of money on the table = $$$

If you are highly skilled and there isn't money on the table = $$

If you are not very skilled and there is bunch of money on the table = $$

If you are not very skilled and there isn't money on the table = $

If you are a 2+2 reader who has won at least 1 big session = $$$$$$$$