Since retirement, 02/18/17:

1. 55%
2. 45%
3. 12%
4. 2% (note that I limit losses to 2 BIs)
5-6. 0%

Post# 20912 in this thread contains my recently posted results.

Good regs don't always win. They quickly top-off/reload, so don't be fooled by seeing them with perpetual stacks.

I'm being nitpicky here, but I imagine you mean, if a winning player [could] play an infinite session.

A better way to frame it is if a winning player combines all of their sessions as one never-ending session, that player wins at 100% rate.

In the real world, I think we approach our true winrate (bb/hr) when we play optimal session lengths. Less than optimal session lengths adversely affecting that, but when the game is good, the gain in edge overcomes the loss in edge from fatigue.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Wow, thank you all for the detailed responses. I'm impressed at your stat tracking, well done.

It does put things in perspective for me as I've felt winning players simply walk in and win 95% of the time. Seeing 60-70% honestly surprises me, but in a good way.

I feel less inferior now knowing winning players have losing sessions more than I thought.

I appreciate the honesty.

my lifetime NL results; 2200 hours total across 1/2; 1/3; 2/5; T/T

Total Sessions: 464
1. Winning Sessions: 270 (58%)
2. Losing Sessions: 190 (41%)
3. +200bb Sessions: 109 (23%)
4. -200bb Sessions: 55 (12%)
5. +500bb Sessions: 19 (4%)
6. -500bb Sessions: 5 (1%)

No one is winning remotely close to 95% of sessions (assuming non lol sample size and no play-until-winning-no-matter-how-many-hours strategy); there's just too much short term variance for that to happen.

If I read things right, I believe Sol hints earlier (within the last few pages) that crushers might actually have fairly meh results when it comes to winning percentages and big losses (and Dizzy's totals above might back that up a bit). i.e. You could probably play a really super nit strategy that might produce a high session winning percentage and limit losses but it might not necessarily (???) be the most crushing strategy for the game you play in (although it would likely still be a winning strategy).

GgoodluckG

yup, +1 to this (hey gg we finally agree on something ). No one is winning anywhere near 90%+ of sessions and a higher win % doesn't necessarily mean a higher win-rate (win % is a pretty meaningless stat imo). It is all about maximizing the wins and minimizing the losses (in $$$ amount)

my stats vs my win rates for reference:

1/2NL: 812hrs @ 12.9bb/hr
1/3NL: 95 hrs @ 22.4bb/hr
2/5NL: 990 hrs @ 11.7bb/hr
T/TNL: 270 hrs @ 13.5bb/hr

Lifetime 1/2 deep. 786 hours, 107 sessions.

1. Winning Sessions: 62.6%
2. Losing Sessions: 37.4%
3. +200bb Sessions: 37%
4. -200bb Sessions: 18%
5. +500bb Sessions: 11%
6. -500bb Sessions: 3%.

16.5bb/hr WR.

How many years is lifetime and why didn't u move up yet

Just over 1 year and it's the highest stake that runs in my city.

last 540 sessions of 2/5
win 365 (65% winners)
w/r 11.17 bb/hr

I do not lock up wins. I dont really have a stop loss. But I will leave if i feel like my game is off. Dont know how to sort biggest losses or biggest wins. But I do know my largest wins are bigger than my largest losses and I have a hell of a lot more of em.

As someone who wins at a high clip - I would obviously love to win more than 65% of my sessions. But this is what makes poker beautiful. Gamboolers who dont keep records are able to delude themselves into believing that they can beat the game cuz they remember the wins and forget the losses. AND they can say stuff like well I would be winning this year if it wasnt for that guy that chased that draw and spiked, or that time I got tilted and sprayed, or that time I was drunk, etc, etc. They win often enough to keep coming back for more

my new tracking app doesn't allow me to figure out % of sessions won without exporting it to excel so I'm going to assume over the last 420 hours i won 69% of my sessions.

What's the buyin cap and rake structure at your 2/5? Not sure if I've asked you this before...

meale
1k cap 200 min 9 handed
10% rake capped at 5$ & 2$ jackpot drop (the 2nd jackpot dollar gets raked when the pot hits 20$
this game is raked and jackpot dropped pre
so if someone opens to 20 and I 3 ball em and everyone folds they will rake the full 7 cuz they round up. If I steal the blinds the house policy is to rake 2$ (1 & 1)but some dealers will only rake 1.

This preflop rake is insanely expensive

Who thinks less than 5% of 1/2 & 1/3 players win 10bb+ per hr over 2k hours?

Interesting. The preflop rake does suck a bit, but your cap is actually fairly favourable. I'm wondering how your 2/5 compares to mine in terms of ceiling winrates...

Mine is a $500 cap, $100-$500, 10% rake capped at $15, no jackpot. All pots also fully rake pre-flop and chopped pots also raked. I think the difference between our games is magnified in big pots. Every time I play a pot $150 or more, I'm raking an extra $8 per hand. If I win just 2 of these pots an hour (totally excluding the myriad smaller pots that reach your cap before mine), we're suddenly winning at $15 less per hour JUST because of rake structure.

And then I wonder what influence the $500 cap vs $1k cap difference has... I find a LOT of recs in my game buy in for $100-$200, with $100 probably being the median buyin amount. This makes for a lot of pots that are raked effectively quite high as the size of the pots isn't much higher than $150 as often.

What do you think? How much if any of a disadvantage is a grinder at in my room vs urs?

Much, much <1% would be my guess.

Way less. Nobody who crushes that much reaches 2k hours before moving up.

Meale - its really hard to speculate without ever having gambooled in your room (play quality is obv a huge factor). You guys dont tip in OZ correct? Tipping is a major league expense here.

The 500/1k buy in I honestly dont see as a huge thing. What I do see as a big deal is the difference between 100 and 200 minimum. That 100$ min buy for a 2/5 game really really sucks.

$100 min buyin for $2-5 would let a lot of people who cant afford $2-5 the opportunity to finally start playing it properly rolled and they could start earning a much better hourly. i wish vegas offered this, where can i find it?

If you can only afford to buy in for $100 than don’t play 2/5. You are providing nothing to the game, are a complete leech and everyone at the table is counting the minutes until you bust out.

Really? I'm talking about 1/2NL with $300 max buy-in & 1/3NL with max $400 or $500 buy-in.

I'd say avg buy-in in 1/2 is $225 & 1/3 is $250.

SquidFace is right about tipping being major expense. I am a conservative tipper but 8% of my gross still goes to the dealers.

I am having a horrible year & my avg has dropped down below $14 pr hr, but it's only been above $18 for over 300 hours once & that is using the filter starting with the 3 hr session where I won $1150.00.

I have been playing over 1200 hours a year since July 2014.

This is not true. I know 3 people who do quite well playing 1/2NL & have a huge bankroll & do not play 2/5NL because the games are tough & too much partnering going on in the small rooms where you only see 1 or 2 2/5NL going.

These 3 people have a bankroll north of $20k & they aren't going to tough it out in a 2/5 game when they have so many bad players in 1/2 games. They won't even sit at a table with other good players, except to wait for their table change.

I didnt either until my room raised the max buy in to $1000 on Feb 1st. My win rate has skyrocketed. Not all because of the increased buy in. Some is run good, but some of it is directly related to the increased buy in. Ive won $500+ in any single hand way more than ever before.

Agree. Though 2k hours is few enough to just run really good.

It depends on the games too. Someone playing uncapped 1/2 would have a much better shot.

I'd be even more skeptical in 1/3 games of which I am aware. You're now suggesting that it is possible to make like $70,000/yr in cash, plus some comps, playing low stakes poker. If that is possible, it is certainly not obtainable by 5% of the pool.

Though, I guess the counter to that is he just said 2k hours. He didn't say how long it took to play those hours. So, we might be talking about someone who just plays fri and sat night between 10pm and 6am, when a tournament is going at the casino, for many decades.

this is true, because for 25 yrs now i still play $1-2 NL, not $2-5. my roll is up to 15,000 but i dont want $500-2000 swings every single day. i hate even dropping $1000 over 2-3 days. makes me feel like OMG, almost a months rent or 2 weeks worth of winnings disappeared. i keep thinking once i hit 25k, then i can finally move up.

of course if the min buy was $100 in $2-5 i might see it differently