Your ignorance and hyperbole is unreal this has to be a troll lol

A northeast grinder can make 75k but LA or Vegas grinders can't clear 100?? Please gtfo man you're starting to make yourself look dumb .

It's not common it's not average bUT it is 100 percent done every year

Jonny, stop posting. Re-read the posting rules intro to this thread.

Others, stop responding when you think someone is trolling. Just hit the report button.

Saying you have 3 years uni is like saying you read Super System.

Speaking from personal experience, the rat race is what you make it. You can focus on turning the crank or innovating. But thinking that grinding out 70k in poker is somehow not a rat race is naive.

He's not trolling, that's the thing.

How do you innovate in a 9-5 working for someone else? I'm not saying playing poker 50 hours a week to earn 70k is fun or is easy or breezy. Obv it's a grind. But it's a grind you opt into on your own terms and get out what you put in. In the corporate world, it's always someone else calling the shots. Ofc there's a difference between earning a 100k salary at an IT firm and then being an entrepreneur or freelancer or even a contractor to a degree. Each of these things has varying degrees of financial freedom attached to it.

I can guarantee you there are some guys playing 2/5 right now that "could" make $100K in one year. It may be 1% of players but it can be done. Is it being done? Probably not by more than a handful of guys but its because they dont play enough hours, not because it cant be done.

At 40 hours/wk with no vacations you can hit $100,000 by making $48/hr. You seriously think that's impossible? I know for a fact its not.

Someone could hit $100,000 by making $40/hr if they were willing to play 48 hrs/week.

NOW he's trolling.

Because you choose who you work for, and you chose your own path. Doesnt matter if you work for yourself or someone else...if you aren't innovating, you aren't thriving in my field.

I'm not saying everyone in my field isn't in the rat race. Most certainly are. But they lack the qualities to which I alluded earlier. Your mindset seems to be the same as theirs, which makes me question if you are truly capable of seeing poker for what it really is, and have honestly weighed the opportunity costs. Weighing opportunity as a 9-5 grind is extremely short sighted.

There are people out there with 10bb/he won rates.. that's already 102k 40 hours a week, in Canada I also think winnings are tax free?

He's still not trolling, that's the thing.

Editing for the mods, don't want to respond to the turd.

well i came in here for some advice on moving up but i guess my current winrate is probably related to the whole "cant beat 7 bb/hr" thing. Im currently sitting on $12k BR. Around 80-90% of my profit just goes back into my BR, i dont really need the money for anything (wife disagrees lol). Started really tryharding live and playing semi regularly (about 5 hours per week) beginning of 2016. Played mostly 1/2 or 1/3, 288 hours, $28.37/hr I also min cashed in 2/2 tourneys for $390 in profit lolz.

Accounting for just 1/2 and 1/3 im at $30.13/hr in 230 hours. At 2/5 im at $31.96/hr in 34 hours. remaining hours are $5.95/hr 23 hours at 4/8 and 8/16 limit. Its extremely likely the winrate is unsustainable, but i can at least be pretty confident i can beat the game at $15/hr.

So i had planned to move up to 2/5, and in fact I did play about 30 hours of 2/5 in vegas with success, but the local casino that opened is running $1/3 $500, which seems like it plays like a 2/5 game. The next level up is 2/5 $1k. Im sort of thinking with my BR and winrate, i should feel confident moving up (although ive been told 20 buyins which would be $20k BR)

The other thing that has deterred me from moving up is I have been demolishing the 1/3 game at the new casino. Only 52 hours, but im at $63.91/hr, and thats despite the game having an effective $7 rake (5+2 with no promos since it just opened). My one session at 2/5 the game seemed a good amount tougher, and im thinking maybe it makes sense, lots of players who havent ever really had a local casino and they are playing the lowest stakes of course, so maybe I should stay at 1/3 and vacuum up all the new player money until the 1/3 game isnt so soft.

Downside of that strategy is it delays my move up in stakes, and I feel like im at a point where im not learning much at 1/3.

So basically the question is...move up to 2/5/$1k?

Pros: theoretically higher achievable winrate. I semi have the BR for it. Learning(?). Long term maybe preps me for 5/10 if i do well at 2/5. Maybe the massive winrate at 1/3 new casino is either also available at 2/5, or just me reading too much into variance

Cons: At least in the 30 hours i played in vegas, i noticed i have a much worse feel for bet sizes that tend to get called vs folded, so id expect at least some loss of winrate from asjustments such as these in short term. Possibly missing out on epically free money at 1/3. Semi dont have the BR for it. Havent really played a whole lot at the $500 buyin level, so maybe moving to $1k after only about 90 hours at $500 buyin is a fast jump.

Why not try take shots at 2/5 rather than fully transitioning? 1 session out of 5-10 play 2/5 rest 1/3?

I always am in favor of agressieve shot taking.

If you move up to 2/5/$1k why do you have to buy in for 1k? You can buy in for 500 still

If you have 12k roll and and are feeling tempted at 2/5 what are you waiting for ?

Also agred that you arent compelled at all to buy in for 1k . 500 or even like 700 to start is more than common I see pros buy in for amounts like that all the time

What do you mean you're not learning anything at 1/3? That's the perfect place to teach yourself some new things. Experiment with something new every few sessions and the ones that work, keep them and add them to your arsenal.

I think he meant to say not enough fold equity to apply things at 1/3 to say you can't learn anything means you are not studying. There is something to learn from almost every session through doing homework, even 1/2.

If you say there is nothing to learn, you are playing 2-3 levels below what you could play and I doubt that.

I see what you mean about not learning much at 1/3 (I am playing $1/$2 currently the past year with only a few shots at 2/5 and have hated it, but its been decent when I put in the volume and time) but you need to keep pummeling this game...even if you level off at $45 an hour, you do that for another 500 hours and instead of around $8000 in profit between the $2/$5 at ~$32 an hour and 1/2-1/3 mentioned at ~$30 an hour, you'll be up another $22,500 at 1/3 in just a few months...depending on what your starting roll was, taking shots at 2/5 and 5/T will be fine, you'll be more prepared once you move up and typically, in my humble opinion, we want to have around 6+ months of beating a game (I'd say $30-$35 an hour or better) at 160+ hours a month (round up to a thousand hours in six months), before permanently considering a move up to higher stakes, with applicable bankroll for those stakes. So, if your BR for 2/5 is 60K+, being only slightly conservative at 200BB buy-ins or 1K per buy-in, well, you are way more prepared for a full move up and also can always come down sometimes during the better moments at 1/3 to play it and not play the times when the very best regs are in the 2/5 games.

Dude 60k for live 2/5 ???? You realize practically nobody would be playing that stake full time if that were the case ?

This isn't online .. ..not tournaments either ...

Also moves aren't permanent . Go on a down swing mI've down to 1/3 for a cpl sessions.

It's not rocket science

No way you need anywhere remotely lose to $60K to play 2/5 if you have a job and arent using the roll to play poker AND support yourself. In your shoes, I would play 2/5 with $5K. If I lost 5 (100BB) buy ins I would move back down. You would still have $2500 which is 8 buy ins for 1/3. More than enough if you have a big edge in the game.

If you lose 5 buy ins at 2/5 and then immediately lose 8 more at 1/3, you have serious leaks or are on the run from hell.

I agree with the part about the job...

I respectfully disagree about bankroll amounts...if you are playing 2/5 regularly and have 60+ buy-ins, chances are you are finding shots at 5/T or 10/20 and those buy-ins are bigger...you need this amount or more, for sustainability.

I am sure there are some people on here who would agree that a larger bankroll when playing full-time hours would be in the best interest. Sure, if you work full time and play $1-$2 about 35-40 hours a week during your own time on 20-30 buy-ins, that is cool...but you are not going to play effectively knowing in the back of your mind if you just lose two all-ins that you are only going to have three buy-ins left at $2/$5 when buying in for 1K and buying in for just $500 is ridiculous if the games are "good". Just being realistic.

I would agree there could be leaks here, but having a smaller bankroll during this period, if it truly were a bad run, would be bad...and runs from hell do happen, which is why having a bigger bankroll vs. stakes needed is never a bad thing.

I would say once you are beating $1/$2 or $1/$3 and want to move up, just follow Kelly criterion...2% or less investment per buy-in is not a bad measure at all. Anything else to me is simply shot taking.

Totally disagree. It's a system wide issue. Who the is innovativing in accounts rec at a company? What about VP of XYZ? And I actually work in a super flat structure field working sometimes 80 hr weeks doing my own thing. And I can assure you it's all about money. Maximizing money. Not innovativing. Whether it's CEO s, CFOs, analyst etc. Everything relvovles around max money. Just like poker. I see borderline unethical, illegal things done every week to get it. Do pp truly innovate to make our lives better as a society? absolutely. But it's few and far between my friend.

I've always believed you can have more of an impact on life on how you allocate your money vs the means in how you accumulate it.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk