Live players are so much worse than online players its basically a different game. Not only are online players a hell of a lot better but they are normally playing multiple tables so they can easily fold and wait for a better hand. Live players have no patience and dont come to fold.

PS...Ive counted many times at random periods and I get 40 /hands per hour.

It's hard to compare a live game to an online game as the conditions are so different.

You've got guys that are extreme examples of everything you'd see online, making them easy to exploit. Last night I watched two drunk/high morons get into a pissing contest blasting every other pot for pot or 2xpot or 200bb AI bets. That's a license to print money if you have a modicum of hand selection and patience. Spewtards like this are relatively common too.

Most games are also deeper BI structures than you see online for a given bb size. 150bb ($300) for $1/2 is super common. And a deeper game plays bigger. I'd estimate that a winrate should scale roughly with the mean stack depth, so you'd see a 50% increase to $21.50/hr in your example.

I've counted hands as well, and often get about 15-18/down for 30-36/hr. Although it's typically closer to 30, and it's less just as often as it's more. I'm generally skeptical of MikeStarr's posts on winrate and strategy, but I think a large component is that his game conditions are notably different than many of the rest of us. And regularly getting 40 hands/hr would definitely qualify as different.

Why do you think you're a winning player? (serious question, as a long term winning player probably wouldn't ask a question like this)

2 BIs can be lost *so* easily. If you can't afford to lose it, don't play poker.

GimoG

Cuz he grinded 2 BI's up to 10 last year, ldo.

Ha, I was worried that might be his answer.

GI'msurehe'llletusknowG

I genuinely wonder how many people here think they ran hot in 2016 wrt their winrate or that their 2016 winrate as unsustainable.

I know my PLO winrate was unsustainable in a bad way.

My PLO winrate was lolol unsustainable.
My hold'em win rate was about right I think.

Will get around to running the full breakdown for the year soon. Want to compare my home game results to casinos and charity rooms (even though LOL samplesize). I do drink at the home games so that may constitute a leak.

Wouldn't be surprised if I was net negative playing PLO/RxR.

NLHE winrate wasn't super hot, so I'd say it was sustainable.

I've been tracking my PLO for the past few months. It's a roller coaster.

I really have no idea. I only played ~250 hours this year, but for what it's worth my winrate was about the same as it was over the last 3 years.

If I had to guess I'd say slightly lucky, even including 100 breakeven hours. But it's certainly possible I've just been running 2-3x my true WR the whole time.

why do I think I am a winning player. Because when I enter a casino 9/10 times I come out a winner.

This is super easy to calculate. Follow along.

1) You make da monies 90% of the time you walk into the casino

2) You have 2 BI's

Therefore you have a [(1 - 0.9) * (1 - 0.9)] % chance of going busto before you achieve poker enlightenment and a bust in the hall of fame

ps: that is 1% chance in case you didn't want to do the math. See you at 10/25 in a few weeks

No offense, but unless you have records to back that up, it seems very unlikely and/or to be based on a very small sample size. Even the very best players rarely have a winning percentage over 70% over a large sample.


Long story short, even if you are amazing, it is easy to lose twice in a row and/or two buy-ins in one session. If you can afford to add to that 2 buy-ins, go for it, but no, even for Phil Ivey, 2 buy ins does not a bankroll make.

I lost 11BI in one 5hr sesh at 1/3 about a week ago. Nothing too out of the ordinary.

My thoughts exactly when switching from online to live. I still think these winrates are a myth that make live players overestimate the profitability of live poker. PS, I was under the impression that 20bb/100 was the max for 2nl online? This was based solely off magorko's sample played there. Where have you seen 30bb/100 over any sample?

I would say 1/2 and 2/5 live play similar to 2nl online. The main difference is the average Vpip. Online games people play far less hands ~20-30%, often far less. Live vpips are much much higher. Also with a huge increase in multiway pots, our equity in any hand is decreased. This creates a much higher standard deviation or variance in the live games compared to 2nl online. I am convinced however that over a big sample one could beat 2/5 for 20bb/100, maybe closer to 25bb/100 if it plays deep. The issue is that if you're only getting 30 hands per hour, even if you win at 25bb/100, you're only looking at 7.5bb/HR.

Be very careful what people tell you wrt live winrates. Do the math yourself. Things to consider are stack depth, table vpip, hand rates, standard dev, your strategy/approach. Always be conservative wrt Ewinrates and understand that you can simply run terrible for over 1k hours - which is a very very long time.

... wait what lol

Kind of concerning if you're buying in for 100bb.

I've actually only heard of around 20bb / 100 hands. I was just giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming someone may have gotten to 30

Pretty huge difference IMO. But yeah, even if 20-25bb/100 is the roof for 2nl, and you know how ******ed that game plays, hard to imagine any game especially with a rake increase playing any worse in terms of potential winrates.

Holy crap. Are those 100bb each?

Even I tapped out around 500-600bb losses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've had 10BI+ losses, but under very rare circumstances.

PLO being one of those.

^^^
You got spunk kid I'll give you that

As G says above, highly doubtful (which is actually being fairly kind).

OP, two of your posts have already set off red flags. Based on that alone (as that's all I have to go by), I would suggest not playing poker until you can afford to lose whatever BIs you plan to play with.

Ggoodluck!G

I've lost 1k bb's plenty of times, but never bought in 10 times

Winning % is a pointless metric. Any of us could walk into a casino, play for a half hour/hour/2hours and then leave and have a 90% winning percentage.

You also stated you turned 2 BI to 10 BI, that's not really impressive and doesn't prove much because:

Either it took you a small amount of time and you're winrate was impressive but over a small sample size, so statistically insignificant

-or-

If you have a significant sample size, in which case your winrate would be tiny, and not proof that your a winner


Regardless, playing with 1-2 BIs and expecting good results will be difficult