He played 25k-30k hands in the 1k hours. In online poker you can easily have a 30k hands upswing where you run like god. It´s hard to believe for live poker but everything is possible when you run extremely hot. See Fedor Holz lol.

Since mid april i´ve played 608,5 hours mainly 1/2. A few 1/3 sessions and 3 or 4 plo 2/2 sessions in there. Im winning 22,97€/h including tips, rake and bbj. I tip 1€ almost every hand i win. Sometimes nothing if it is a tiny pot and sometimes 2€ if it is a big pot.
I read in a lot of forums that around 20/h is a good and sustainable winrate.

My answer is that it isn´t possible to achieve a winrate of 55/h at 1/2 in the longrun. In the shortrun YES, everything is possible.

Definitely possible he sun runned that in a 1k hour period -- it also definitely is way above his true long term winrate.

I've had sunrun and brutal "nothing holds or works" downswings that lasted 500 hours. So yea, in a rake free game I think you could hit $55/hr if you play well and run well for 1000 hours. I don't expect it's sustainable unless the game is *really* deep ($500-800 average) and plays more like a $2/5 game, where an 11 BB/hr rate is high but reasonably possible.

Where in Oregon? I lived there a few years and there were a couple Indian casinos that spread NL and a handful of card rooms. All the games I saw seemed pretty reg infested and they were raked. How does a card room or casino have no rake? If this is some home game with zero rake and tips that adds, compared to my games, almost 10BB/hr. And home games are soft. So is it possible he makes $35/hour? Yeah, over 1000 hours if he played well and ran good sure.

How much do you guys think a 10% $5 max rake affects your hourly?

@ CoranMoran

Given the small 1000 hour sample size and the fact that he could easily be not including ~$20/hr in tips/rake, I
certainly wouldn't say it's definitely not possible.

Course, I wouldn't trust anything anyone says in a poker room either. He'd have to start showing me some spreadsheets before I even began taking him seriously.

GcluelesswinratesnoobG

Our 1/3 NL game used to have a 10% $5 maximum (it's now up to $8).

If you guesstimate 30 hands per hour with the majority of pots getting to $50 (which the majority of our 1/3 NL pots likely do), say like even 90% pots reach maximum and the other 10% are taken down preflop (no rake), that's $5 * 30 * 0.90 = $135 per hour coming off the table. At a 10 handed table of everyone playing the exact same way, everyone's share would be about $13.50 an hour or so. Course the tighter players aren't involved in as many pots, but then when they stack someone that someone's stack has been obliterated by rake. Or even just guessing like on average $4 comes off per hand that would be $4 * 30 = $120/hr, so $12/hr each. I'd guess somewhere in that ballpark.

GaddingonBBJandtipsitbecomesevenmoredepressingG

Oregon card rooms aren't allowed to rake. They get all of their revenue from the "cover charge" for coming in for the day. CM's acquaintance is paying that, but it's not included in his records. It's really reasonable, too, as they don't also have hourly seating fees like the Texas card rooms do.

Do you have any poker tracker app feature that you would like to have and doesnt find in your current app?

$7/down is on the low end of standard for places that charge time. Most people think time charge is significantly better than pot rake. That's probably a decent baseline to start at.

Depends on what max buyin is.......

When I lived in Eugene there were card rooms that charged hourly rake. I don't recall the amount though as I only went a few times. This was eight or nine years ago though.

@LRR

Depends what they rake but basically figure out the average rake per pot, multiply by hands per hour, and divide by average number of players.

Where I play it is 2 + 10% cap 5 which most pots reach in a 2/5 game when it isn't folded pre. They rake pre anyway but it's 2 if it's a raise and the blinds fold. If it goes 25 25 100 fold they rake 7. We are also frequently effectively 6 or 7 handed in late night games due to people sitting out and empty seats. There is a reduction at 6 handed but it has to be actually 6 handed which is rare.

So I figure average 5.5 dollars a hand, 30 hands per hour, average 7.5 players per table, for 5.5*30/7.5 = 22 dollars an hour. I think it is even worse as I am usually one of the looser players at the table. Add tips, ballpark 25 dollars an hour.

I gotta move up to 5/T where it's 14 dollars an hour time rake. Keep running horrific every time I shot take.

Ugh ... no flop, no drop most places. Preflop rake is cancer.

Most people buy in for $200-$300
The player in question always buys in for the max:$400

Yes. Straddles are common from UTG and BTN.
Straddles at 1-2 must be $5

No. Tables are alost always full with 9 players

Yes. 1-2 is the biggest game in this card room.
There are occasional 2-5 games around the city on certain days of the week.

I hear people claim that the “sample size is too small” no matter how many hours have been played.
1000 hours represents an entire year’s worth of play from this regular.
That’s 20 hours a week every week for the whole year.
That’s essentially a 2nd job.
I'm beginning to think that there is no sample size large enough for people to ever say “Yeah, that is big enough to prove something.”

Thanks for the feedback, guys.

--cm



Yeah, it's not likely but it's obviously possible if he heaters like crazy
So people really run heaters for an entire year?

People run heaters for MUCH longer than that. You don't get many hands in live poker.

How many make or break your session pots you think you play in a typical 20 hour week? Just running real good in those makes a HUGE difference. Always be on the right side of set over set. Hit all those huge combo draws on the draw vs set vs over-pair 1000 bb pots. It happens. Hell people have year long live in the casino dice and baccarrat heaters (famously so in some cases). You think a guy playing 200bb deep no rake entry level live poker can't turn a $35 true win rate (basically the established 10bb crusher wr plus 100% rakeback compared to most people's stats...and that might be guessing low imo) into a $55 result when things break his way in the right spots for a half time year of live poker? Heck one deck smacked you in the face with a tilter on unlimited rebuys session in a game that tends to play deep can do some crazy things to your results in a sample as long as that.

Most places? Where outside of Vegas? I find the rake in Florida rather depressing.

Everywhere in the UK has no flop no drop afaik.

It's not that 1000 hours isn't a long time. It is. It's just not a lot of hands, about 25k to 30k.

To put things in perspective, when I played online I I'd play 100k+ hands most weeks. I lost my databases so I'm going off memory but... One minute online was roughly equivalent to an hour or two live, depending how many tables I was playing. And if I looked at my results from week to week playing the same games they could look very different. Sometimes super good, sometimes losing, sometimes breaking even for weeks. Which would have been the equivalent of breaking even for more than a lifetime of live play.

Granted...my edge online mass tabling was much smaller, but as with any random variable, some people are going to find themselves on the far extremes with their results being several standard deviations away from expectation.

Keep in mind the unusual cases you hear about, people with insane winrates, or good players losing over very long periods, these are the statistical outliers. About one in every three hundred players will have extreme results (where I'm defining extreme as three or more SDs from their expected value). And there is an observation selection bias where we are more likely to hear about the outliers, and the more extreme their results, the more likely we hear about them.

It doesnt matter if 1k hours is an entire year of playing live. It is about the amount of hands you get to play in this time.

+1

A huge part of my recent Super Nit strategy is taking down big pots preflop (i.e. limp/reraise) with one of the main benefits being avoiding the massive rake.

GcluelessrakenoobG

I would not argue that online we see a lot more hands than live, there is no argument to that. But I would argue that online players over value that fact.
Because in reality, we don't play , for example, 100 Thousand hands,we're dealt 100 Thousand hands. There's a difference.
When you're multitabling, you playing, the good online players at least, more or less a robotic, button pushing game.
You're not sitting there contemplating every hand you're dealt. You're auto folding the vast majority.
So, stop that. Because you play online, you haven't accumulated that big of a volume edge as you think.

For me 1000 hours would be closer to 2 years of recreational play.

In 94 hours (after I've reached 1000 hours of my recent Super Nit strategy) I'm going to post some of my giraffes. All the giraffes will be >= 1000 hour sample sizes, with the best one being 3x better (3x!!!!) than the worst one (and everything in-between in what is overall a very low variance steady-as-she-goes upward climb).

Glol@lifetimelivepokersamplesizes,imoG

We are talking about variance and random variables. It doesn't matter if we are comparing the results of a literal bot making decisions in microseconds to someone making decisions over several minutes. If the sample mean and standard deviation are the same over the same sample size measured in hands, that is all that matters.

Nep, by that logic we probably only play 2/3 hands p/h and are auto folding the rest so that logic doesn't really make sense.