[OFFICIAL] Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
View Poll Results: What is your Win Rate in terms of BB per Housr
Less than 0 (losing)
5
6.41%
0-2.5
0
0%
2.5-5
6
7.69%
5-7.5
8
10.26%
7.5-10
15
19.23%
10+
26
33.33%
Not enough sample size/I don't know
18
23.08%
03-08-2018
, 03:56 PM
Quote:
Anyhoo, no one else has attempted it and I didn't want to leave brown's attempt hanging, so here's my attempt, which will lead to my point.
If like most (say 80%) of pots go to maximum rake, then I initially guessed like 2 hands won per hour for a tight player, so each $1 increase affects the winrate by $1.60.
But then I began thinking about what happens when we stack someone. If they have more than us, only our effective stack is in play, but of course it's $1.60 shorter per hour that we've played (costing us that much when we stack them). If their stack is less than ours and brand new (thus not being affected by rake), there's no extra raping. But if their stack is less than ours and has been at the table a while, it's being raped over that time and now we lose money when we stack them. If mean, if it's been there 4 hours and they are a loose player winning 3 hands per hour then that's another $2.40/hr we're losing when we stack them. But then there stack is only getting raped if they're winning (and yet are shorter than us, which might be difficult); of course, they coulda lost most of their stack to a shorter stack (but then they didn't lose as much due to that shorter stack also being raped). Anyways, I really had the confuses attempting it this way and really had no idea how much to add on for rake raping in stacking situations.
So instead I simply said 30 hands per hour, 80% reaching max rake, our fair share of that at a 10 handed table is $2.40 / hr per $1 increase. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story either cuz as the $1 increase in rake goes up then the percentage of pots reaching the maximum rake goes down. But, all in all, I figured that at for each $1 increase in rake that costs us approximately $2.50 to our bottom line. I can be convinced otherwise.
So, what does that mean for our 10bb/hr crusher at 1/3 NL? Well, if his game moves from a $5 maximum rake to $7 maximum rake, that means he's lost $5/hr off his winrate, which now puts him at 8.3 bb/hr. The 2/5 NL crusher drops to 9 bb/hr. But what about the lowly 1/2 NL crusher? He drops to 7.5 bb/hr. Now of course this might not be totally accurate either as the 80%-of-pots-reach-maximum-rake was dealing with a 1/3 NL example, so likely the 1/2 NL pots won't reach them as often (although if you think the game plays much worse then it might be fairly close).
So, a mere $2 increase in rake (all other conditions staying exactly the same) is annoyance for the 2/5 NL crusher (costs him 10% of his winrate), but for the lowly 1/2 NL player it's devastating: it costs him 25% of his winrate.
Now what about those 7 bb/hr solid players? The 2/5 player loses 14% downgrading to 6 bb/hr. The 1/2 NL player? His winrate takes a 36% loss, and now he's a toiling at a pedestrain 4.5 bb/hr (read some books, amirite?).
The same sorta thing can be discussed in terms of what percentage of the average pot rake makes up. The smaller the game and the smaller the pot, the more damaging the rake is. The lines between crushing vs doing ok vs even beating the game become much much thinner.
This is the only point I'm attempting to state. Having a blanket claim that 10 bb/hr is achievable in "low steaks live pokr" is lazy and misleading (and, from everything I've seen produced in this thread, totally unsubstantiated). What's achievable at a 2/5 NL 200+ BI game isn't going to be close to what is going to be achievable at a 1/2 NL 100 BI game.
That's all I'm saying. Really have no idea why some think this is controversial.
GcluelesscontroversialnoobG
If like most (say 80%) of pots go to maximum rake, then I initially guessed like 2 hands won per hour for a tight player, so each $1 increase affects the winrate by $1.60.
But then I began thinking about what happens when we stack someone. If they have more than us, only our effective stack is in play, but of course it's $1.60 shorter per hour that we've played (costing us that much when we stack them). If their stack is less than ours and brand new (thus not being affected by rake), there's no extra raping. But if their stack is less than ours and has been at the table a while, it's being raped over that time and now we lose money when we stack them. If mean, if it's been there 4 hours and they are a loose player winning 3 hands per hour then that's another $2.40/hr we're losing when we stack them. But then there stack is only getting raped if they're winning (and yet are shorter than us, which might be difficult); of course, they coulda lost most of their stack to a shorter stack (but then they didn't lose as much due to that shorter stack also being raped). Anyways, I really had the confuses attempting it this way and really had no idea how much to add on for rake raping in stacking situations.
So instead I simply said 30 hands per hour, 80% reaching max rake, our fair share of that at a 10 handed table is $2.40 / hr per $1 increase. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story either cuz as the $1 increase in rake goes up then the percentage of pots reaching the maximum rake goes down. But, all in all, I figured that at for each $1 increase in rake that costs us approximately $2.50 to our bottom line. I can be convinced otherwise.
So, what does that mean for our 10bb/hr crusher at 1/3 NL? Well, if his game moves from a $5 maximum rake to $7 maximum rake, that means he's lost $5/hr off his winrate, which now puts him at 8.3 bb/hr. The 2/5 NL crusher drops to 9 bb/hr. But what about the lowly 1/2 NL crusher? He drops to 7.5 bb/hr. Now of course this might not be totally accurate either as the 80%-of-pots-reach-maximum-rake was dealing with a 1/3 NL example, so likely the 1/2 NL pots won't reach them as often (although if you think the game plays much worse then it might be fairly close).
So, a mere $2 increase in rake (all other conditions staying exactly the same) is annoyance for the 2/5 NL crusher (costs him 10% of his winrate), but for the lowly 1/2 NL player it's devastating: it costs him 25% of his winrate.
Now what about those 7 bb/hr solid players? The 2/5 player loses 14% downgrading to 6 bb/hr. The 1/2 NL player? His winrate takes a 36% loss, and now he's a toiling at a pedestrain 4.5 bb/hr (read some books, amirite?).
The same sorta thing can be discussed in terms of what percentage of the average pot rake makes up. The smaller the game and the smaller the pot, the more damaging the rake is. The lines between crushing vs doing ok vs even beating the game become much much thinner.
This is the only point I'm attempting to state. Having a blanket claim that 10 bb/hr is achievable in "low steaks live pokr" is lazy and misleading (and, from everything I've seen produced in this thread, totally unsubstantiated). What's achievable at a 2/5 NL 200+ BI game isn't going to be close to what is going to be achievable at a 1/2 NL 100 BI game.
That's all I'm saying. Really have no idea why some think this is controversial.
GcluelesscontroversialnoobG
03-08-2018
, 08:25 PM
03-09-2018
, 06:56 AM
I'm very recently getting back into live play, I hadn't played at a casino in over 4 years prior to last week. Trying to seriously beat $1/2 NL for the first time in my life, I was always primarily a limit player in the days of abundant online US poker. If only I lived in California or Nevada, I wouldn't have to try to get good at no limit
I was just thinking about my last 2 sessions. The first one I got up to about double my buyin (100 BB buyin), my session was growing long and I glanced around at the table. 2 solid players matched my stack and the bad or mediocre players all had 50 BB or less. I got up and left.
Then, my most recent one, I had tripled up my buyin (100 BB buyin). One probable pro/semi-pro had me covered and 2 other middling players had probably 200 BBs. I got up and left.
I set aside a very limited amount of money for my current poker foray, an amount that wouldn't hurt me in any real way if it was lost. But the limited amount means I really need to reduce variance when I can. I feel like when I get up to 200 BBs, I really shouldn't play anymore unless all or most of the other large stacks are poor players. I don't want to play like scared money but I also don't want to risk playing for stacks when I have multiple buyins on the table against strong players.
I'm just spit-balling, sorry if this is kind of a thought salad. What do you guys think? Should I be ashamed to leave for 30 minutes (or whatever the rule is) and start fresh when I run it up?
I was just thinking about my last 2 sessions. The first one I got up to about double my buyin (100 BB buyin), my session was growing long and I glanced around at the table. 2 solid players matched my stack and the bad or mediocre players all had 50 BB or less. I got up and left.
Then, my most recent one, I had tripled up my buyin (100 BB buyin). One probable pro/semi-pro had me covered and 2 other middling players had probably 200 BBs. I got up and left.
I set aside a very limited amount of money for my current poker foray, an amount that wouldn't hurt me in any real way if it was lost. But the limited amount means I really need to reduce variance when I can. I feel like when I get up to 200 BBs, I really shouldn't play anymore unless all or most of the other large stacks are poor players. I don't want to play like scared money but I also don't want to risk playing for stacks when I have multiple buyins on the table against strong players.
I'm just spit-balling, sorry if this is kind of a thought salad. What do you guys think? Should I be ashamed to leave for 30 minutes (or whatever the rule is) and start fresh when I run it up?
