Maybe we could throw the word winrate into the FAQ thread's title, with the link to this thread in the first post (I believe it's already there).

After going through numerous posts about the winrates of the live scene im often left confused. You have people in the brick and mortar forum saying things such as "20/hr - 30/hr is easily attainable." Then there are those posts from losing players (imo) that say things such as "Rates that high are borderline impossible. You would be lucky to even get between 9-10/hr!"

I read a thread a long time ago (from Kurt I believe, that was pretty motivating) that the for a winning TAG at these particular stakes you are looking at something around 6-9bb/100 for BOTH 1/2 and 2/5. At the casino that I frequent, I can easily see how this is possible as there are only about 5-10 regs at 2/5 that are decent; well at least imo.

Posts that say things such as 7bb/100 is impossible are often very intimidating for the some of the players that are playing live as a way of income throughout college/as a living. They normally get posted after a long downswing from a particular player and some of the people who frequent this site that are wanting to make a switch from online to live sometimes feel like "phhh I can just make more online if its that way." In reality they CAN make more due to the number of hands seen, BUT how many times have you been in a extremely juicy live game where there are 3+ fish sitting with up to 1000bb or more. I see it almost everytime I step into the casino!

My question for long time grinders of live 1/2 and 2/5 is:

Realisticly, what would be a good winrate for a solid winning player at these stakes? (In either bb/100 or $/hr format)

I say 6 to 9BB in California 2/5. But folks here think its not possible. I guess its all depends on when you play and player types. Also which structure you play and casino you play at. I myself think everyone is horrible at the beginner level. I see terrible lines bad betting patterns and no understanding of SPR. Let alone proper EV plays.

Holy god I've seen so many of these threads, the general consensus IMO is this

1/2 avg is $15-$25, doesn't mean there aren't people doing $35-$40

2/5 avg is $30-$45, doesn't mean there aren't people doing $50-$60

At one point I was at $48 an hour playing 1/3, then a little thing called variance hit me and now I'm at $25.

This is what I think, obviously there is a reason there have been a million threads on this...

In before thread breaks down into a brag/flame/semantics war. There is a thread dealing with this in the FAQ I would suggest reading through it, unfortunately its a collections of treads, and is pretty cumbersome, as well I haven't come to the part of it actually answering the question besides that there isn't a lot of agreement on much of anything from the definition of average to what is considered good. I'll do my best with what i have experienced, here goes.

Good is relative, anything positive can be perceived as good as most player are loosing players. Besure of what you are looking for and why, because spending too much time comparing yourself to others and worring won't help you improve, and as long if you are happy with your results is all that really matters.

Sample size is everything and the accuracy of that sample is just as important. Without at least 1k maybe 2k hours your results won't mean much, I think you start to get an idea around 500 but no where a true and accurate picture.

Becareful who's advice you believe, it quickly becomes evident who advice seems reasonable and who's doesn't. Even among the solid posters there seems to be quite disagreement on this subject. A good deal of this disagreement usually takes the form of disagreement involving either semantics or debating across game location and the skill variance across several seperate locations. Don't just agree with someone because they happen to say what you want to hear think about it and try to form your own opinion. Any time you recieve the third party results "I have a friend whose results are..." throw this out. I know what my results are and this is all we really can answer is our own results and experiences, anything other then this will just muddle this already confusing discussion.

To be honest I doubt this question will ever really be answered accurately enough for everyones liking many diffrent reasons, so I won't even try, the best you can hope for is just a rough idea. There are no absolutes except for that what ever the answer is you can besure that is will change over time.

In 85 hours, which would be 11 long sessions, you've only suffered ONE bad beat for half a buy in? I'd say you're running pretty well at the moment.

It doesnt really matter what your winrate is, as long as you make the correct decsions every hand the "winrate" just affects the variance associated with the game.

Obviously some people make better decisions than others.

I hope you mean the poker room is tough as in the whole room. 1/2 tables are never tough. What poker room you play at?

lol

FWIW the thread I posted this in was moved to here.. I should have probably just linked OP to this thread.

This thread isn't actually linked to from the FAQ - it really needs to be.

Actually, it is. But I'll make it clearer.

Thanks - the last time a winrate thread was created, I went to the FAQ to grab the link, and couldn't find it.

I just started grinding 1/2 seriously last week. Ive played around 25 hours and am averaging around $80/hr hopefully can maintain this long term or increase my win rate a little bit.

Should be no problem, that's about standard.

People post these hourly ranges like $15-$25 at 1/2 as though if youre a winning player your winrate will start at $15/hr. Like that is the entry-level salary or something. Honestly, if youre making $1/hr at 1/2 youre probably doing better than 95%+ of the players in your playerpool.

For those who havent been playing live a lot, do not expect to be automatically making the top end of the hourly ranges posters are suggesting here. Most winning players in these games proabably don't even approach the bottom of these ranges.

Oh, and I refuse to believe its possible to achieve $30+/hr at 1/2 $200-max-buy $4-rake over a significant sample. There may be people who have done it over 10 or 15k hands, but I have to believe they were running way above ev.

Is losing 3.5 buyins at 1-2 terrible? i had a few coolers like i turned the nut flush on 3 fvlush board bet, bet river guy shoved i insta called he showed str8 flush. i also had AA cracked, all in on flop i shoulda folded? This isnt a HH review just a general idea on how i kept losing.

last hand i shoved over a $45 raise from an UTG tighhht player for $220, i had AKcc he had KK and called.

i dont even know if i want to go back there, is stuff like this standard or should i quit?

Losing 3.5 buyins is nothing. The AK hand sounds like a spew against a nit. You will get coolered in NL. If you aren't losing stacks when coolered, you probably aren't maximizing your wins when ahead. Look at the graphs from some of the online guys. It's like the rocky freaking mountains. Just hang in there. If you play solid poker, you're probably a decent winner.

I think it would be helpful to unpack what goes into a win rate understand better the variation. Ie what percentage is just winning with the best hand, and what percentage is huge bluffs what percentage is cbetting and taking down pots.

I'm curious if the 15 dollar an hour win rate is possible displaying straightforward tag game or whether a lot of the winning actually comes from forcing folds.

anyone ever post any live graphs in this thread? that would be neat to see, from a player with 500+ hours at one level

From playing a lot of micro and low stakes online I can tell you that almost all (if not ALL) your profit in these loose-passive live games is going to come from showdown winnings not folding people out. In all likelyhood your redline (the graphed line of your won-$-without-showdown profits) will be negative. If you can get it to breakeven at 1/2 I would guess you'd be cbetting, pf restealing, and bluffstabbing very very well. At 2/5 its probly feasible to have a positive redline. But still, the overwhelming majority of your profits will be from showdown winnings.


If you have <1k hrs logged and someone asks u what ur winrate is, the correct answer is: IDK.

i agree. i am mostly interested in observing the variance and such that people experience. obviously 1 or 2k+ hours is better

Update: I'm at about 115 hours total now, and average about $11.1/hour. I started out at $25/hr, but its gone slightly down since. Someone ask where I play, usually the Horseshoe in indiana.

No one answered my question yet, how many hours is a big enough sample size to get an accurate idea of long-term winnrate?

At least 400 hours, to get an official win rate. As long as your around 5-9bbs an hour. Your beating the game quite often.

Not This
This