Haha thanks for the vote of confidence but, yeah, I definitely feel like especially late in my sessions (I'll play 8-12 hrs) that I definitely bleed at least a little bit and am killing some profit there. I really only get to play on Sundays since I'm working 60-70 hr weeks, and even on Sunday that's after working 7:30am-3pm. Sometimes I get a day off during the week so I'll get in like a 10:30am-10pm session but that's few and far between. Just trying to equate what I'm playing to what everyone else is on here and get an idea of whether or not I've got some ability and if shotting might be reasonable after so few hours since my window of hours to grind is so small. Thanks for the reply.

Yep, but if you win you get $5 from everyone else so it goes both ways....sometimes we'll put in a rule that the all-in has to be for more than $100 but usually it's for any amount.

read a bart hanson article the other day that relates to this: http://www.seatopenpoker.net/committ...s-to-doing-so/

Seems solid.

You're getting about 60% more h/hr, and assuming you're winning 10% of hands, you're saving $5/hr on tips. So depending on rake and buyin structure, it would seem like ~$37/hr would be around the top sustainable WR.

I must be a poker god for running at $39/hr this year then (straight up live dealers bitches).

Yeah, but do any of those straight up live dealers look vaguely like celebrities or movie characters?

In my mind they all look like topless celebrity dealers. They make about as many mistakes too.

There is a dealer at Blue Chip who looks like Jennifer Garner...especially when she does a closed-lip smile. Exact same dimples. Eyes, nose.

bumping this. anybody? ikestoys?

I know someone with $45 over 2k hrs. I think $70 hr is possible tbh

2/5 will def cut it. And don't kid yourself; the player pool will not adjust

$55 at 1/3
$65 at 2/5

Kydd had like $125 an hr at 1/3 over a very long time

Screw 1/2

**** no. Way easier to get big stacks with 1/3

@55.08/hr playing 2-100 spread. Only 24 hours though.

Max sustainable at 1/2 is ~$20-25/hr.

Yeah I really cannot see a $55/hr winrate over a super long sample unless it is a deep game with low rake.

Like if you are playign a 1/3 uncapped game with 15k on the table it really isn't the same as a 1/3 game with <3k on the table.

I started a trend a few weeks ago and got the table to agree to table stakes. Now every couple days I go in and every fish at the table is at least 400bb deep its a dream come true.

I'm unclear on what you mean, spike--table stakes is normal. Do you mean you got them to agree not to cap the buyin?

yes buying in for ike 100% of the biggest stack

I would rather buyin something comfortable. What if the biggest stack is 500bbs+.

I wonder what pros do in that situation, cover the big stack or buy in like 200-300bbs.

There is skill and there is position.... I would buy in to cover anyone I have position on no matter their skill.

.. I might buy in for the same as the highest stack even OOP if I have a significant skill edge on them

you cover the fish but like there isn't much if any difference between 300xbb and 1,000xbb because people aren't sticking in 300xbb that often

With how underolled I am since I pulled back my cash from an attempted pooled bankroll with a good friend, I have had to keep my starting stack at 100bb.

Matching the biggest fish at the table is definitely optimal with deepstacked fish at the table. They don't understand deep stacked play and consistently pay off with 500 bb deep stacks with their ****ty rag two pairs, and oversets.

Good thing that I am currently CRUSHING the local 1-2 cash games. I started with 2 BI two weeks ago solo lol - up to 12 BIs now. (Luckily I am running really hot). Not sure if anyone has ever started a roll with nothing like this before.

not to sound like a prick but set over set you are winning a big pot no matter what really so that is a bad example

rag flushes or sets on wet boards when you have the nuts is a better example

there's a huge difference because fish don't know the difference between 300bb and 1000bb

He might only be sticking in 300bb 1 in 300 hands but when he does that's an extra 700bb of mistakes he can make.

The 2/5 game here is $300-$1500, a lot of people buy in for the max and then chip up to 400-500bb and I have seen a lot of lolbad play when deep. People just go "**** it I have a set I'm never folding", no planning ahead or thinking at all.

I see fish drop 4-500BB in a hand about once a week. It's +EV to be super deep with a fish for more than just stack purposes though. They don't understand the threat of the deep stack either. I'm not saying bluffing huge should be a big part of your game, but when a fish with top pair sees a $200 turn bet knowing you've got $600 behind, they often urinate audibly.

Wait for it.

People who don't second guess bottom sets 400 bb deep when facing aggression from an aggro regular are my bread and butter lately.

I hate playing so nitty, but so far it's been rewarding singling out people with a faceup PF calling range of 22-66 and simply playing 77+ and consistantly oversetting them night after night with range domination.

I'm not saying that I'm not going to value bet low sets like that deep stacked, it's just the reverse implied odds of setting up with them get worse as play gets deeper and I tend to err on the side of caution when a passive fish goes aggro on me on raggy boards.

I guess I am just trying to point out that oversetting someone shouldn't always result in a huge pot. If players were more aware of the reverse implied odds at hand (luckily they aren't) I could see it not being as profitable.