It's funny a lot of my accounting friends are now financial analysts for fortune 500 companies. I hate it when people equate finance is the same as accounting.

hi havent read all the thread coz its huge, but i have a rake question. the rake at my casino has just gone up from 10% capped at $12 at 2/3 to being 10% capped at $20 and at 5/5 its gone from 5% capped at $20 to 10% capped at $20
with win rates at 30/hr at 2/3 and 40/hr at 5/5 prior to the rake increase are we able to calculate the new win rates or at least get an idea?

That rake made me vomit

this. jesus man, where do you play.

i go at the problem from the opposite direction.

prior to the change, you were paying half the rake, and making only $10 an hour more. If you were winning $100 or more pots an hour, the disparity in your hourly between the two games would come entirely from the reduced rake.

Now that theyre raked the same, it seems like you would be making less in the bigger game.

I realize that the rake reduction was not quite 50%, since the rake cap on the larger game was higher, but i would think that would not have a huge effect, since the rake caps were already quite high.

Players in your pool would have to be insanely deep pocket for this game to persist.

My suggestion...walk away for good while you're still ahead.

That is a truly awful rake structure. Kind of unbeatable I'd say. Maybe barely beatable. Not worth your time certainly.

It doesn't even matter if it's beatable by an individual player because the house is literally chopping away legs of its players.

the casino is Jupiter's on the gold coast of Australia.

thx for the feed bk i have only played at the casino once since the change and after hearing your thoughts im probably never going bk. massive shame as the games are super soft.

Cash Game Count: 44
Wins: 30
Losses: 14 Total Won/Lost: $7,645.00
Average / Hour: $30.70
Std. Dev. (Amount): $321.94 Total Hours: 249h 0m

how many more hours do I need to get to know for sure if I am a solid winner?

edit: this is also 1/2 nl

i was about to ask the same question to you math guys, at average 2/5 nl live how many hours is a decent sample?

Halfway to my 2/5 bankroll. Need to rub heads for run good.

Some say 300-500 hrs.

4-500 hours is a good sample to tell if you are likely a winning vs breakeven vs losing player.

But it's no where close for estimating your true hourly rate. 1500+ hours to get it within a BB or two. But by then it will have changed, or your competition will have changed, or a number of other factors, so it's essentially impossible. But you can get reasonable estimates.

I always just assume I'm a 20bb/hr winner no matter what.

boss^^^

i think i recall reading that tipping isnt legal in Aus... if so, that makes it a little better, though its still super high

In terms of actual mathmatics 1,500 to 2,000 hours would provide a meaningful sample

In terns of realizing if you can beat droolers in live poker, you should have a good feel at 500 hours imo. Feel and win rate are two different things here. Your wr is meaningless at 500 hours.

im not sure you understand the "mathmatics"... your statement is untrue.

500 hours is not sufficient to provide a very high level of confidence or pinpoint your precise winrate, but it is certainly statistically meaningful.

I agree with 500 being a good first chunk.

sigh I need to step my game up then... I'm barely at 100 hours lol

after I hit 500, are we posting screen shots/giraffes ITT?

Sick how much I've been getting leveled on this forum lately. I build linear regression models 10 hours a day dude.

The general consensus for mean win rate is that the CLT applies at a sample of about 100K hands. That is to say your distribution approaches a normal curve around 100K mark. When online fr cash players looked at their databases, 100K samples accurately reflected their 1 million plus hands. 30K hands, even 50K hands still were not as normally distributed as one would desire. There is a lot of variance in a 10K spree of hands.

That said, even then your mean wr is not entirely accurate. As you improve your game over time your bb/100 can increase, so the mean for an improving player actually constantly moves to the right of the curve. This of course has quickly diminishing returns, but it is still important to note.

1000 hours is about 30K hands, so yea.

No.

Assuming hands/hour estimations are correct for live play, this post is true at p < .001.

LOL, my 500 hour blocks could vary as much as 7bb/hr from one to another, and that's within one year period.

Good luck, guys.

Also, as an aside, there's something I've been considering lately. I'm not sure if it's been discussed elsewhere. If it has, I haven't seen it.

Of course, total profit in poker can (and should) be linear. However, it seems to me that when talking about winrate only (e.g., $/hour) for a particular game (e.g., 1/2 only), when moving up the poker ladder, that winrate takes on a nonlinear trend -- particularly logistic -- as a player approaches the time in which he or she should move up to the next stakes game. In other words, their winrate will asymptote at some relative ceiling. I don't know if this is true in practice, or if it has any practical applications to modeling a player's performance as they move up, but it's something I've been thinking about lately.

This is likely due to differences in variance as a function of individual player differences. I've thought for a long time that poker trends should be modeled as multilevel regression models (which takes into account trends over time as a function of individual differences) as opposed to basic linear regression (which essentially assumes that all players are equal).