shooting better than your 90 isnt the proper comparison though. shooting low 60s would be a better one because many people can be weekend warrior golfers and be bogey golfers. 80/20 rule applies - 20% of the effort to get 80% of the results, the final 20% of the results requires 80% of the effort. with that being said, do you see guys on your local course shooting low 60s? probably not, and even if you do, are those players good enough to be on the PGA tour? i have zero doubt that if a top player (i honestly don't know who is good anymore) wanted to take the time to play 1/2, 1/3, or 2/5 for 2000 hours, they would absolutely crush, but why would they? why play 2/5 when they can play 50/100/200/400 and take Phil Hellmuth's money?

while i dont know if Mike's BB numbers are correct, i see a lot of areas that leave a lot of money on the table at 1/3 and 2/5, which is what i mostly play now, even from people who are supposedly very very good. i do think 10BB/hr is generally going to put you in the highest echelon of players, and i can say for certain if i was making 16bb/hour over 2k hours, i wouldn't tell anyone.

LLSNL rake traps are absolutely crushable. Just think of the last time you've been genuinely surprised by a play. Then imagine if you just did the right thing all the time. Which is actually possible.

I don't track my own win rate because I'm not sure what it even means and I hate record keeping. The games are changing, my play is changing. Sometimes I'm playing a crappy game for a promo. Sometimes I've decided to do Spanish lessons on an app for a couple hours while being a nit at 1/2 because, why not make $10-14/hr while doing my lessons? Or do the same thing while working on sports bets or something else. And the sample sizes are tiny.

However, I think it's a worthwhile subject to look at overall, by surveying the win rates of many other players and thinking about the broader issues.

Like, if I became convinced that a very good 2/5 player can make $75/hr full time, long term as a true win rate, then I might sharpen up my poker game expecting to make at least $50. I am pretty good, not great, at poker. Particularly live poker, and chatting people up and all those elements. So $50 seems pretty plausible IF $75 is really doable.

That's a good point, and some people just won't go for it.

I actually have a couple of friends who are broke and it drives me crazy, cuz I will find some way for them to make easy money and they'll pass it up every time.

On the other hand, IDK if being a programmer is that easy for everyone. I'm dyslexic and stuff like that is a bear for me. Just endlessly staring at a screen and punching in numbers in a corporate office would be hell. (I'm assuming that's what they do).

Maybe someone is a teacher because that's what they want. But they'd also like an enjoyable side job to make more money. Maybe they are an aspiring creative. A grad student.

While it's not for everyone, playing poker is fun for a lot of people and at least tolerable for a lot of others. You make your own hours. You can travel and spend a few hours playing to offset the cost. It's really pretty cool.

I mean, this is a poker forum. We should all understand why playing poker profitably can be very appealing for the right person.

Now, to Johnny's point, I also know a lot of really smart people, gambling experts even, who are not really cut out for poker. But I think some of the types he's talking about, probably make enough money that it's not worth taking seriously.

I'm not saying that out of 330 million, or however many are adults, that a million will take that $35/hr tax free doing a leisure activity. Or 100,000. But might 10,000? That is one person in 33,000.

Would 10,000 semi regs making 10bbs/hr have a pretty big impact on the poker economy?

IDK. but, in 1/3 you've got the house taking, say, $120/hr off the table. Dealers and waitresses about $40. (both conservative) You've got a couple nits who win 5bb ($30 total). You're the crusher taking 16bb ($48). Now someone sits in making 10bb ($30). So the remaining players have to lose $268/hr. $53/hr each.

Now, what if say, 1/7,500 people is able and willing to pick up that easy money?

I think more people than that play division 1 college football or basketball.

So whats your point? That my win rate ceilings are impossible to reach? Or that you dont know anyone that does it? Or that only the top 0.1% can do it? What exactly?

No, you are saying there's no evidence that its possible to reach numbers that I mentioned. He's trying to provide what he believes to be evidence that its NOT possible.

What would you consider proof? If someone posts a graph of 2000 hours, you'll say 2000 hours is nothing. If they post a graph of 4000 hours people will suggest maybe bad sessions have been left out. There's no way of proving any of this to someone who doesnt want to believe it.

We've been thru all of this before. Believe what you want to believe.

What's the average age of your opponent?

in his games? probably like 114. florida, man...

(i also fail to see how this is really relevant)

MIkestarr, can you you update us on what your winrate claims are that GG etc disagree with you about?

Very few people (if any, although I admit my memory is shot and finding stuff in this thread is hard) have posted a giraffe of 12+bb/hr over a 1000 hour sample size at the 1/3 NL stakes in this thread (FWIW, I'm one of them, although in admittedly much better conditions). I don't think it's too much to ask to have at least a handful of examples to start having something to hang a hat on, and yet we don't.

I'm not going to go as far as saying it's impossible. But I think it's fair to ask for *something* that starts backing up claims, and it's fair to question otherwise.

GcluelesswinratesthreadnoobG

If your average 30 year old is way better than your average 75 year old it may help explain variation in win rates. I do 10.5bb/hr and the average is definitely over 60 including a couple young guys(30-) at the table. I know I'm crushing but I'll be the first to admit it's a very soft game.

@ 7weeks

This is the claim that sticks out for me, and I think it's fair to ask for evidence of this.

I mean, if your unraked 1/2 NL home game plays 1000bb deep, ok, whatever, all bets are off for potential ceiling. But that's not a typical LLSNL game (at least if you look at most of the LLSNL threads in this forum).

GcluelessclaimsnoobG

12bb/hour X $3/bb X 1,000 hours = $36,000

you are in your own world in thinking that most players who make even half of that $ are sticking around 1/3. i really just don't understand how you don't get this and continually come back to it.

I don't have a dog in this fight and have no interest in arguing for either side but here are my results at 1/2 and 1/3 before I moved up to higher stakes

1/2NL: 826 hrs, +21,026 for 12.73bb/hr
1/3NL: 98 hrs, +5,950 for 20.24bb/hr

Weighted average BB = 2.106

Totals: 924 hours, +26,976 for 13.87bb/hr

https://imgur.com/a/iTJq2y4

sorry its only 924 hours instead of 1k+ but it's all I can provide

now I play higher stakes (barely, almost no volume anymore) and am on a ~700 hour break even stretch. poker, variance, blah blah

also I was bad at poker for a lot of these hours (prob still am) so I was certainly on a heater for those curious.

Yeah I don't blame you. It's an interesting claim combined with an even more interesting insult. Why would someone be mad at someone asking for evidence or some form of proof?

The conversation was about people making the "right plays" and some not even knowing what the right plays are even though they think they do. I basically said that if you aren't near the following win rates, that you aren't making the right plays often enough because I think these numbers are attainable.

15 BBs for 1/2
12 BBs for 2/5
10 BBs for 5/10

Honestly I think win rate ceilings can be even higher in the right conditions. I didnt say those are my win rates. I said I think the ceilings are in that area.

When you factor in their heart transplants it significantly reduces the median so that's an unfair question.

So we aren't talking about actual win rates. We are talking about what we think potential win rate ceilings are?

In florida during daytime average age is about 45-50..at night it's closer to 35ish I would say

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

don't overhype yourself. you're hourly is actually 13.86bb/hr we round down, son.

j/k, thats some solid work.

Depends on when and where I play and what season it is. When the snowbirds come back the avg age rises dramatically as do win rates. People have no idea how seasonal S. Florida is unless you experience it. My win rate is about 50% higher during snowbird season. They might as well change the name of S. Florida to Nittsburgh during the summer.

Unless you are playing any limit game. Then the avg age is about 85.

Hahaha that applies to north Florida too!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Do you play limit?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

That's what I was talking about. As I said, I really think ceilings are higher than those numbers I listed. I know what my win rates are and I know there are people better than me....so there you go.

I played 8/16 OE once while waiting for 2/5 NL. Does that count?