Nice results 👍🏻

Yeah I'm winning at 11.7bb/hr over 1750 hours but that's a weighted average bb/hr that includes 1/2, 1/3, 2/5, and 5/T - still got awhile to go before I hit 2k hours at a single stake. It should happen at 2/5 but not for 1.5-2 years at the rate I play (~850hrs/yr).. I will post my graph at 2k hours most likely

I sent you a pm.

Here is a recent custom tracker I've been using tho.



This one is for barebones frequency tracking. Green = bet, yellow = check and red= fold.

But the app allows for a lot of custom "list making" and exports in CSV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, so many Jimmies

Jimmy be hatin life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey guys, didn't realize I had posted years ago. Well, I never quit poker - love the game too much.

Since late March, I've played around 50 hrs, and in up right under 1k. So around 10 BB/hr for a really small sample

I also just lost 460 with some pretty ****ty luck.. I flopped trips with QJ and raised this guy on the turn. He hit a 7 to complete a boat (J7). The game was too goo to leave though. Usually I try to limit myself to 300.

Somebody straddled to 5, I picked up aces in 4th position. A min raise and a call before me. I raise to 42. Minraiser calls. Guy behind him pushes for 340 (I have 210 behind) I push. Mofo has jacks and catches. And I walked out. I was stunned. But then I realize, this is poker. And I want him to make that mistake every time. True players are in for the long run and we can't sweat "variance" (yes I know it's real but I think it's over-used as a cause for bad results). Just have to focus on making good decisions. And truth is, I've been making way more good decisions than bad.

The nights I lose big, often I'm getting sucked out on pretty bad or I make a good/tough call where I am comfortably ahead but the guy's equity cashes in on the river (I notice a theme in some big lost pots is that I don't have quite enough chips to defend a hand or charge a high enough price where the equity is bad or borderline bad for villain. Will have to be more cognizant of this)

I mean a few days ago, I was like at something absurd, 25-30 BB/hr. But that's trash. It is nice to know though that as is, I'm doing ok no? 10 BB/hr over 50 hrs. Does it really mean nothing? I strive to improve. Reading blue book, watching wsop, getting more mathematical. Hope everyone is well. I'll be contributing more to the forum now that I have tapatalk. Cheers and run good

It means nothing. For example over my last 45 hours I'm winning at 52bb/hour - I also haven't had a single losing session in that time. Your post seems pretty results oriented. and fishy thinking in some ways - ie, not having enough chips to defend a hand, talking about blue book (it's bad and out of date, sorry). Not saying this to be mean - you should look into some different books, maybe get a Tommy Angelo book about the mental aspect.

It means absolutely nothing...which means it fits in quite well with most of the posts ITT.

This is kind of the nature of *everything* people do recreationally. I've seen guys join hockey teams or softball teams and be all into it for a year or two, then fall off the face of the earth and stop playing. Poker is the same way. People lose interest or change their lifestyle and it just doesn't fit.

Then for a rec player it will take several years to log 2000+ hours. I play more than a lot of recs and I still only get about 5-600 hrs/yr. So for an 'every other week' kind of player they'll never make it to that kind of sample. But a more serious "professional" that *can* put in more time will want to move up in stakes.



A 50 hour sample is literally nothing. If you search for some of my other posts ITT, I've got a graph of "trailing winrate", where for every session in my log I pull the last 100 hours, calculate a winrate, and plot that value over time. It's completely noisy. +-30BB/hr easily. 50 hours will be even more swingy and worthless.

The *minimum* sample that I'd even consider looking at is 500 hours, and even that can be up and down significantly from your real skill level.

Dreams. Crushed.

Basically, if you play recreationally you'll never really know your winrate, and your results will be strongly influenced by luck.

I appreciate the feedback


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm reading some Ed Miller right now and he said at 2/5 if you're a winning but not elite player "would'nt shock him" to hear about you going on a $30k downswing. That's 6000 bbs playing live poker. WTF?

All I can say is "LOL"

Ed Miller is a fool


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well...

The math:
A winning player might have a std dev of 100BB/hour (perhaps more - I think mine is currently calculated at 120BB/hour). The standard deviation per N hours grows with the square root of N. So this would be the same as a std dev of 1000BB/(100 hours) or 2000BB/(400 hours).

However, 2 or even 3 standard deviations shouldn't be "shocking." (3 standard deviations below expectation is about 1 in a 1000). So a winning, but very unlucky, player could find themselves running 6000BBs below expectation after 400 hours, if they're playing some fixed strategy with a std dev of 100BBs/hour.
Add in not too many more hours at a lowish winrate, and you've got a 6000BB downswing over hundreds of hours.

The reality:
I tend to believe that there's something amiss in all of the straight stat stuff. For one, I think it's possible to play a winning style with very low variance - much lower than 100BBs/hour - and I think most winning players would naturally gravitate towards this style when on a bad streak (and probably just quit before going 30k in the hole). And I think a lot of what "variance" actually is in poker is when players occasionally make very bad decisions, then correct for those bad decisions in future play. For example, maybe a winning player tilts off a buy-in once every 50 hours, but not more frequently. Although this would affect the variance calculation, it's more of a constant effect on the winrate than actual statistical variance.

tl;dr:
Yeah the math seems to imply that a 6000BB downswing is very possible. But the math might actually be wrong in terms of what actually happens in real life.

+1.....well said, Sir

Yeah, I don't disagree with this (i.e. takes a long time to put in 2000++ hours at a rec stake recreationally / most people lose and move on / people who crush rungood early may move up if they have that choice / etc.). There's probably other reasons too (tax avoidance purposes / crushers at this level may have grown tired of hanging out and posting with us noobs / etc.).

But I *still* hear this 10bb/hr thrown about lazily, and I'm just not as convinced as everyone else is that it is nearly as easy to accomplish, especially at the lower 100 max BI stakes where rake is a lot more killer than at higher stakes / higher BI games. I just find it odd that this is the winrates thread, and, as far as I can recall, no one has posted a 10bb/hr winrate at the lowest staked / non deep BI game over significant hours, and yet it is still taken as a bible quote.

Gnotsayingit'snotpossible;justsayin'G

It's not - and this is one of the very few things I see eye to eye with a nit like you GG You remember when I was first posting. I was crushing every single limit I played. Wonder why? Cuz I didn't "run bad" in big pots. People can talk all they want about playing well crushing etc. but at the end of the day you need to run good in big pots to achieve >10 BB's/hour over a reasonable (but not significant) sample size and the further you get past 1000, 1500, 2000 hours etc. at a given stake the more likely you are to see mean reversion to the generally accepted figures that fall within mathematical confidence intervals.

I've played a **** load of hours since 2015 (>3500). I'm near 6 figures lifetime profit. I went on a nearly 1000 hour break even stretch!. Things can always be much much worse than people can possibly imagine. I am well past that breakeven stretch. My game hasn't remarkably changed - I'm better now than I was 6 months ago and I was better 6 months ago than I was the 6 months prior to that, but none of that matters because the "short term" in poker can easily last thousands of hours.

I used to cling to my win rates as the end all be all of poker and compared myself to other players. And then one day I realized none of that matters. So much of poker is out of your control that it doesn't matter to worry about the minutae that cannot be controlled.

/full-time jaded grinder rant

Yup, definitely one of the things we agree on Johnny.

This is why I put zero stock in examples of people saying "lolz @ 1/3 NL live, I played 600 hours and crushed at 15bbs/hr before moving up". It's just very likely they ran well (although undoubtedly played well and were a winner), but it's likely their numbers wouldn't have held up over the long term. Want to crush poker live small stakes? Play loose. Play aggressive. AND run good. You'll destroy the game. For a while.

One of my fave giraffes on here is from Duke. It's awesome cuz like 50% of his winnings come in like the first 1/6th of his time (or something like that, I'd have to search for it).

GcluelesswinratesnoobG

Concerning your statement in bold - wouldn't that require the player exiting the game when he buys in for $300 & is now sitting on $600?

The reason I ask, I am more tight than aggro, but much more aggro than I once was. Last year I'm sitting on $700 [1/2NL] with a whale at the table. I end up winning 1.2K in 5 hours. We get it all in. I had Broadway OTT & he had 2nd set. He called it a day after that & so did I, as he was the reason we were there.

Now, some 1500 hours later of my usual $18.25 an hour, [1/2 ~80% 1/3 20%] my win rate is back down to around $19.20 or so when you filter it so it starts from the date of the BIG win. StdDev: 109.573. Still don't know how the Crushers do it for 10BBs an hour.

Thanks. Reinforces my belief that you need a 10K bankroll to play 1/3 buying in for $400.00. I can't imagine me going on a 7k downswing. The roll is insurance & making it possible to not think of the chips as money. Like you said - math vs. real life.

Restricting the sample to the same stake is not reasonable, IMO, as long as people don't pick and choose. This excludes a lot of 10BB/h win-rates, I think.

But I'd rather it would be listed by stake / max BI, because I believe the smaller you go in both then the more massive the effect of rake is. I just get the feeling everyone is considering all stakes / max BI the same in this regards, when I don't believe they are.

Sorta like the difference between a 2/4 Limit vs 4/8 (with kill) Limit game; if both games have the same rake, there's a *massive* difference between these two very similar stakes (one is beatable, admittedly for not that much, while one is pretty much unbeatable), but both of these would get simply lumped into "live low stakes Limit".

GcluelesswinratesnoobG

$73.62/hr for July baby!

Gotta love those 17 hour samples with PLO in them.

**** if we want to do July winrates, I'll brag
almost all 2/5, tiny bit of 5/5 PLO

I think my shock factor would be around $8k for 2/5 100bb cap.

As in i wouldnt be that shocked to hear that a winning player lost 16 buy ins. I think $5k is approaching upper bound and $10k is time to pick up another hobby.

I also think that those limits are rarely reached bc of selection bias (players with those kinds of losses simply drop from the pool never to be seen again)

Ignoring recreationals with income of course. They can lose forever. Which is why they are the real winners.