The first downswing you experience after you move up stakes is always the worst.

I remember having to shot take 4x before I could move up. Then I finally ran so good during a shot take, by the end I was already shot taking the next stake.

I never actually looked at stats from peak to trough but here you go. 1/2 and some 1/3 in Vegas and Horseshoe

edit: it's a period of 5/18/16-6/18/16 which includes a week in Vegas

if you know $5k swings are going to happen what kinda BR do you think works best? $8k? $10k?

I know **** all about US tax laws, and know even less how they pertain to poker as a business/source of income.

Sorry I can't be of much help there.

I'm not sure what's happening here but this isn't how tax works at all. Income is taxable when earned whether you keep it in cash, chips or deposit in the bank. Obviously if you deposit it in your account there is now a record of it but if you are following the law you should be paying tax whether you deposit the winnings or not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yikes, that's like a 17-26 BI downswing, gross!

GwouldbeleakingmentallyallovertheplaceG

Very similar to my experience as well

10k at bare minimum. I prefer to have around 40 BIs but i also do this to pay the bills and I would imagine my STD is very high (I've never calculated it though).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Approx 64000

I play PLO and ran mid five figures under AIEV last year, just be happy it's holdem where you genuinely are a ~70/30+ favorite when all in and the pots are smaller/less frequent.
I also assume jonny is asking for how many all in hands, not total number of hands.

I don't think I could even play PLO just for that reason. The variance should even out quicker since there so many all in hands, but if you run bad you could run REALLY bad in PLO.

No idea how many all in hands it is in total. If I were to take a guess I would say its somewhere in the neighborhood of 400-500? Somewhere around once every 4-5 hrs. I played 2 today. I was 55% and 91% and lost both. Its rare to get 2 big ones in one session for me though. If I have more than 1 or 2 per session they are normally vs short stacks. I still count them but they don't have much effect overall.

Live PLO doesn't really ever even out. The variance is too big, I don't think I could even it out in 10 years of volume. When I was playing home games of the same size I ran it 3-4x every time I could to realize my equity. In capped games, often the PLO game after 4-5 hours could have 4000bb+ on the table. The game gets big. In a 1/3 PLO game being in for 2k+ isn't rare at all, whereas in 1/3 holdem it would be nuts.

Yeah, I believe you. I just started playing small stakes PLO online because Im close to clueless about the game, but I really dont think Ill ever play it live. The games are just too crazy

Homer it looks way better like this...



cAproblemsolvedAm

Nits itt. PLO is life

yeah so much this. play super over rolled and for stakes small enough that running bad for a really really long time won't bother you that much and then just fire away. i'm probably just a degen though.. i mean i'd rather get into a bunch of large 55/45 and 60/40 spots during a session than sit around for a few hours at nlhe and get into maybe 1 all in spot. kinda off topic but targeting any sports apparel wearing person at the table for another .5-1BI 55/45 spot is pretty sweet too.

A very good PLO player will have a higher winrate in their game compared to a very good NLH player too since people in PLO make many more mistakes.

I wish I was rolled and had the time to become good at PLO.

Mike- I don't see the utility in calculating those AIEV's. it seems to me it's just fixating on something that doesn't really matter. You can't change it, and it is just makes it easier to feel sorry for yourself. I'll do quick math on my drive home sometimes while it's still fresh but I think it's probably detrimental to keep records of it. At best it's taking time away from studying math that actually helps.

Curious anyone have legit samples (prolly need 2k hours in guessing) demonstrating higher hourly in PLO v's NL of same stakes?

Not that I don't believe the reasoning but preflop or otherwise, equities do run closer and in my admittedly limited PLO experience it seems hands/hr is significantly reduced also.

And yes I fully get the distinction made re: AIE and the likelihood of poor players making more mistakes in large pots.

I think it's pretty well accepted that PLO has a higher hourly but it is true that the variance is surreal and even those who talk about variance all the time really underestimate it. I mean you get 14-18 hands/hour in live PLO, that is insane. That is the only reason I do not play it more, even though I love it and people are horrible.

The average pot in PLO is substantially larger than in NL. Considering stack sizes, 1/2 or 1/3 PLO often look like a good 2/5, and every now and then look like a decent 5/10.

There is a lot to know about PLO, everyone thinks that people stack off with non nut flushes in PLO and that's what makes it good. 1) that's not entirely true and 2) that's not what makes it good. PLO is a very complex game and wrt live it will never come anywhere close to NL in terms of the average player knowledge about the game.

You get 6 NL starting hands, what's not to love

I'm not entirely convinced the increased PLO hourly offsets the increased variance though I've done no maths on it

I've never dropped 2k playing 1/2... what kind of 1/2 games are you playing? I'm talking live of course. I've been playing in casinos for a few years now and I've never dropped anything like that at 1/2. I think Jonathan Little agrees with me.

Very much yes. Which means we should be comparing $1/2 PLO winrates to $2/5 NL winrates.

1) Very, very much agreed. Even the worst PLO players I know learn this quickly. Doesn't stop them from drawing to it as part of another hand.

2) The table talk around PLO strategy is even more awful than NLHE. I heard a couple of guys discussing why there were no PLO books and how hard the game was, and they were bouncing around player names trying to figure out if anyone had written one. I wasn't going to tell guys too dumb to google "PLO book" the name "Hwang".

Wait, then why do I only get dealt 1 badugi hand when I play PLO?

Last WPT I went too I was lucky enough to have a conversation with Anthony Zinno. In my circle regularly I have friends who play high rollers and I do alright, but this is a guy who got world poty. He disagreed that you have a bigger edge in plo (he won the 25k plo wsop). He laid it out quite well and it's stuck with me.

I've never tracked a whole lot in live poker, it's relatively unnecessary. Sample sizes are just too small and often player's game is changing too much for it to be relevant. I think a lot of you tracking is overkill. Your win-rate would probably go up if you didn't spend so much time on it.

PLO gets a rep for you having a bigger edge than HE vs fish. It can be very true, but it can just as be wrong. In HE you get in more 80/20 and in PLO more 60/40.

The edge comes from the average level of PLO players are steps behind the average skill in HE. The AVG reg in PLO has huge fundamental leaks.

I am winning a lot more per hour in my PLO game, but in order for you to do that, you need a softer field than your AVG HE table, hopefully it plays deep and your rake is not higher than HE. In most places PLO is raked higher.