The correct place for your thread would be Poker Goals and Challenges with a link in this thread in reply to them doubting you.

honestly, nl 2cent 4cent today is about equal to live low stakes

Highest 1/3 winrate over 2k hrs that anyone knows about?

I doubt you will see a very high winrate at 1/3. If someone were to have a very high winrate at 1/3 they would have moved up a long time before 2000 hours. If someone has a 2000 hour sample it's most likely a mediocre winrate because 1 of two things probably happened. One it's the highest game spread so its probably not an amazingly action packed game. Two they can't beat 2/5 so they stay at 1/3 with their mediocre winrate.

I'd kill myself if I played 2000 hours of anything below 2/5.

Yeah... I got the warning message that it was closed. I'll repost to appropriate place tomorrow.

I recently found out the the 2/5 game that I have been looking forward to moving to has changed to an uncapped game.

I have just a small amount of experience at an uncapped 1/2 game, but the people there generally buy in for 100-200.

How do I proceed at determining when/if to play this uncapped 2/5 game? I realize that there would be many variables, like who is deep (fish or regs). I'm nearly rolled to play 2/5 at $500 buy ins, but the uncapped deal is making me rethink this.

My plan is to start paying more attention to the 2/5 tables and their stack sizes while I'm playing 1/3.

uncapped 2/5 is basically 5T and I was at 30xbuyins for 2/5 at 500 max but when they changed the buyin rules a bit of runbad crushed me. You really need to buyin for 1k to play a game like that properly.

Kinda what I was thinking. A catch 22 really. Up until this past Friday, I thought 2/5 was the highest I could go in this area, but was about ready to move to it. Now, 2/5 will play bigger (that's good), but it will take longer before I can play it (bummer).

True, but it might knock some of the fishier 2/5 players down into your current game.

O/U at one month, not two.

Seriously, grinding live poker is a ridiculously tedious and boring life. I've never done it. I've put in more than 100 hours in a month and it's awful (combined with a full-time job).

I know people who have done more than 200 hours in a month. It leaves no life. Why anyone would choose to do this as a profession is beyond me.

Now, if I could do it in 30 hours a week ($30/hr is still $900 week) I would consider it.

over two months it is easily do able with decent side action

40k a year / 12 months is ~3350 a month. just over 100 a day. if someone gave me 'crazy odds' i would take this bet over two months.

edit: i wouldn't do this for 2 months on this type of grind at 1/2 without side action; even if i planned on it i am sure i would get burnt out

bankroll. not everyone has one set aside for poker. they take $400 to the casino on a friday night and play. what they win, goes toward bills or movies or something. but not to building a poker bankroll.

i'm still playing $1/$2 after a year despite winning $10K this year ... because i wasn't able to just put that into my poker bankroll. my goal in 2013 is to do just that. get square on all bills and be able to put aside a certain percentage of winnings toward just poker.

Very much this. Even with a 'dedicated bankroll' it gets very tempting to use poker money to buy that new snowboard, or laptop, or whatever. So it can be hard to build the roll to play higher if you're taking some out for other reasons.

Another is game selection. In some markets there are a LOT fewer $2/5 games than $1/2 games, with a smaller and more skilled player pool. Why sit at $2/5 with the same people all the time and have to constantly think about your play when you can sit at $1/2 and crush the casual donkeys? Whether their actual winrate in $/hr would go up or down by moving to $2/5, some will assume that it'll go down and won't make the switch.

I'm sure this has been covered already ITT but I cant seem to find it: how many hours would you need to play live to get a solid idea of your winrate in that game?

Old wisdom used to be min 300hrs. Now most say 1000hr+.

because they likely have bad habits on the table aka they suck and you dont know it

really depends, but 1000 hours is pretty acceptable

far more likely they have poor bankroll management

Any thoughts on weighting more recent hours logged heavier than the older sessions? I would assume that throughout the course of playing 1000+ hours that one's skill level should improve drastically if they are working on their game and not just logging hours for the sake of logging hours.

honestly i think 1k hrs is plain silly. After BF I was forced to play live pokerz (again) full time. I can feel my edge, see my edge, and taste my edge. My edge in live is soooooo much higher than on line and that being the case I need a smaller sample size to dteremine my w/r. My w/r was the same at 300 and at 1k and at 2k and at close to 3k hrs of live pokerz since bf.

Alright, I said I'd post an update after 100 more hours, and I did fully expect my winrate to drop, but not this much! Here's a dose some sobering truth for this thread.

Previous post
Update

Red line = initial post


Since last post
Winnings: $378
Hours: 93.22
Hourly: $4.05

Total to date
Winnings: $2,977
Hours: 206.03
Hourly: $14.45
# of winning sessions: 26
# of losing sessions: 14
# of breakeven sessions (+/-$25): 7

So yeah, almost 100 hours of breakeven kinda sucks. I don't think I played poorly during that period, but definitely sub-optimally. The biggest difference is whereas I played many short sessions initially which were fairly successful overall, since then I only had 2 sessions under 2.5 hours (and both were cases of me getting coolered for 2 BIs each within an hour). Many of my sessions are 4-6 hours now. Furthermore, going to the casino used to be a pretty big deal for me. I had to be in exactly the right mood, have a full stomach, and be full of energy. Lately I've been going to the casino a lot feeling only 70% or 80% which is also probably affecting my win.

I think my B and C games have improved a lot though -- I'm certain I would have done much worse than breakeven had I put in regular 4+ hour sessions in the beginning. But B and C game is still bad poker, I've got to find a way to focus better at the table. When I'm playing my B game I miss steal opportunities and thin value.

That said, looking at the big picture $14.50 over 200 hours is not bad at all, the graph is not very pretty but it's never a giraffe, is it?

Giraffe?
What is that a sharp decline?

Movember done.

Profit: 7804
$/hr: 96.35
11/14 cash
81 hours

I'm so lazy.

5/10 and 2/5 ike?