Yup. Garick is right for a rough guess. You can count on the fly if you'd like when you're at the table too. Or if the room drops the rake in the rack instead of a box, count that periodically. $30 hands/hr @ a lowish $4/pot average rake is $120/hr. But IME the avg rake is a little higher, or if the pots are smaller they're also faster and you're closer to 40/hr.

The real numbers that I've heard come from guys running home games that play effectively the same or bigger than the casinos, at comparable rake levels (although they also tend to have free food, good free booze, an idiot host that's playing out of the rake money, and sometimes naked masseuses, so totally worth it).

If you're looking for a starting place that is better than thin air what casinos charge in time raked games is good because there is no guesswork. They typically charge at least $7 eveey thirty minutes to every player. At a nine handed game that's $126 an hour coming off the table. That's in pure rake no jackpots, not counting tipping or paying $8 for a beer or whatever. The house is far and away the best player at the table in almost every game that gets spread.

Would be interesting to hear your friends objections to this reasoning, cuz I can't think of a single positive long term upward trend, let alone one that would offset all the negative reasons you state as to why games can only get worse (which I agree with).

GcluelessdelusionalnoobG

Yeah, it seems to be quite certain despite the most recent, soon to be deleted, post rebutting the argument. The only hope for reversing this trend is an unlikely cultural shift bringing special attention to poker (again). If there does happen to be any correlation between public policy and game quality, it is very minor indeed. The economy is less connected to policy than is typically believed. Besides, wages are stagnant and the market is down this year, so I see no reason to believe any perceived improvement in game quality is associated with current policy.

I am trying to address this in an objective, fair, general, and poker-centric way, so please do not read this as me wishing to advance a political discussion itt. Posts itt shouldn't mention Trump, political parties, or advocacy for political causes. There's an entire forum for that. I do think a discussion of how policy impacts winrates is okay though, but will cease further discussion if mods desire.

Post above is fine, for the reasons given. The one before that was not, and is now gone.

Essentially zero chance this is true. Let’s assume 33 hands/hr. According to this: http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/ Even someone whose true winrate was $30/hr or 15bb/100 winning at 75bb/100 over a 33k sample of hands is 0.0000%. Someone beating the game for a true winrate of $40 an hours has a .3% shot.

So if I’m choosing between this guy being a $40/hr crusher who also went on a once in a lifetime heater or him being a liar I’m gonna go with him being a liar.

I just realized I screwed something up when I was posting this. $30/hr is 45bb/100 which is the number I used when I put it in the calculator but for some reason I wrote it up as 15bb/100.

TY for the pokerdope link. Interesting and made me feel a little better about downswings based on my records so far. Also, it showed I need under 2k for a bankroll for $ 1-2 play. That's half than what I always thought.
Maybe there's hope for me yet...

I've lost $2k in one session playing 1/2 before, and I'm a lifetime crusher at 1/2.

The thing that is very wrong with those variance calculators is that everyone leaves the default Standard Deviation in there, which is designed for nitty online microstakes grinders. LLSNL SDevs are WAY higher. Like at least 3 times higher, often considerably more.

That said, 1KBBs in one session is definitely not a normal loss. Must be a crazy and deep game.

was that an uncapped 1/2 table?

Holy cap batman. I did $1500 once on mad tilt. 2k is impressive.

Go Mavericks!!!!!!!

I played in a 1/2 home game with a win rate of $50.01/hr for 828 hrs. This was after tips and $1/hand rake. Max buyin was $500 but was rarely done, prob average buyin was ~300. Of course I ran like God/ha. But this game sounds very similar. So yes, player's claim of $55/hr is very possible in these conditions....especially as this is "biggest game available" to original player

lol, tbh, his reasoning didn't seem to make much sense to me and I think he was just trying to say something to make himself feel better because he planned on playing poker indefinitely and I don't really blame him. I am paraphrasing, but it was something along the lines of IF wages were to go up then people would have more money to play with? Maybe that would mean that even though games wouldn't get bigger from a blind perspective smaller games may play deeper in the future with weaker player pools? I didn't really agree at the time. All the reasons I listed before seemed very valid and very real and what he said didn't seem to change that. Interesting part is now he makes it very clear that he is over poker and actively looking for something else. But similar to many poker players I talk to, they tend to be looking for these unicorn opportunities that are difficult to find without non poker hard skills so they just continue to play poker.

Hmm building up my bankroll so for for 1/3. Currently have 12 BIs lost about $1600 last 2 sessions.

You guys think I should stick with 100bb buy in or drop down to 50bb buy in?

do you depend on poker for living expenses?

if not, i would stick with buying in max if you think you have an edge in the game.

As i’m Sitting here for ~20 minutes waiting for a table it has me thinking - do you guys factor in waiting for table time in your hourly win rate calc?

Nah, my winrate is purely my winrate at the table. I don't play anywhere with regular hh's or bonuses etc but that'd be the only thing I'd incorporate into it, and I'd use a separate results tab to see my hourly with and without bonuses.

Depends on what you're using the info for. For bankroll calculations, no, for evaluating different options (playing in the game across the street with quicker lists, getting a job, etc), yes, for example. Same with things like traffic conditions, comped food, etc.

I think it's flawed to count commute time toward hourly. You have to commute to any job. Also for that reason shouldn't deduct food costs from net winnings cause you need to eat for any job. Unless you mean ADDING comped food to your hourly but I would also disagree cause comped food is basically your "benefits" as a poker player.

Ive pondered this also but just like your hourly at work, commute time isnt included.

Still an important consideration. I used to have an 1 drive to work, and worked 45 hours a week. Then I moved and had a 15 minute drive. Life ev improves. Hourly does not.

I typically try to play any game that’s profitable.

I’ve sat in 5/10 and 10/25 games for a spell while waiting for my normal stakes even though that’s typically way higher than I’d normally play.

I’d probably even sit in a limit or plo game

You shouldn't count it in your hourly. But you should count it when comparing two different game or location options.

I’m very fortunate to have 2 rooms with 15 minutes of my house and they’re generally enough tables running there’s no wait. Just got me thinking. Thanks for the input. This day game is crushable and has broken me out of a 150 hr play bad / run bad funk. Thank you loose passive table.

Sigh, one of my biggest flaws at the poker tables is my ego. This month I've played so far 45 hours and up 174$ the last 4 sessions I've had I've lost 2100$ and 1 session was from bad beats/coolers. But the other 3? I can't honestly say I played well.

When I sit at the poker tables I believe Im the best player there and I let my ego control that. In turn i start making bad opens, bad raises etc. My overall game changes. I've just realized this after reflecting on my last 4 sessions.

Does anyone have any advice or a link for controlling my ego ?