Zzzz I understand that.
I guess let me reiterate; What in your opinion, including every day, do you think the average number of hours you need to get an idea of what you're hourly is? (say for someone that played equally on the weekends and weekdays).

I don't understand why it matters if you're only playing on certain days. (Again not saying it wont make you're winrate higher, just to get an average of YOUR expected wr) Wouldn't (for example, like I said early I have no idea) playing 600 hours on the weekends give you an idea of your hourly(for weekend play) just as much as playing 600 hours on the weekdays give you an idea of your hourly(for weekday play)?

Yes you're right, hourly can be calculated as such, but my point is that comparison cannot be made without consideration of several factors, more than just stake, BI, and rake.

Btw, I was responding to what you said here:

My point is that, it may be possible in Vegas to maintain 10BB+ win rate and play on certain days under certain condition, but it may not be possible in a small card room.

What are the cardrooms in Vegas like?
How many tables usually run on weekdays, at different times of the day?
Same question for weekends?
Also on average how many tables would you say have a player at 1/2 that know wtf they are doing?

I've only played at 2 casinos in the midwest and one of them is a POS haha.
Been wanting to go to vegas for a while!

You can download the Bravo app on iPhone, and it lists out the room condition all across the America. I don't recall a lot of rooms from Vegas listed in Bravo, but I could be wrong.

Vegas is far from the best place to play - sure they have tons of 1/2 and enough 2/5. But they have very little 5/10+ (i have the Bravo iPhone app). AC and LA (commerce) are much better from what I hear. so i recommend LA > Vegas for you guys who want to make a "poker vacation trip".

as for me, i've found europe great too.

I play in juicy deepstack 1/2 game for a win rate just shy of 17BB/hour over the ~9k hands. Is this sample enohugh to think I'm crushing the game?

how many hands an hour? haha

Uncapped 1/2 game is not low stake, but rather low blinds.

yes, u r crushing the game but u dont have a big enough sample to know your winrate for certain.

??

Not really...

If average BI to the game is 3k, winning $34/hour is far from crushing the game.

Not trying to nitpick, but there are a lot of apple to orange comparisons in this thread.

I booked a winrate of more than $100/h at 2/5 $200-$500 buyin with a massive rake over 800 hours (may have been closer to 1000, but this was about 18 months ago now).

Over my last 300 hours or so I've pretty much broken even.

People are grossly underestimating what a reliable sample size is imo.

Reminds me of back in the day when people would post their pokertracker winrates, and they were always really impressive, but when the dataminers would post reports over several months it became clear that 'good' winrates were actually unsustainable for most players.

Something to add to that is in live games winrate/hand is so much higher, the games play so much deeper, and the time you can take to sit there and analyze each and every hand so thoroughly means your skill edge is amplified and negative variance decreases. Someone only making 5bb/100 at 2/4 online will probably beat 2/5 live for ~15bb/100 (5bb/hour) or something. Check out this site: http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tool...nce_simulator/ and look at 5bb/100 compared to 15bb/100 winner. If you know for sure you're a 5bb/hour winner longterm then even if you run as bad a humanly possible you'll still make 7500bb over 100,000 hands (at 2/5 $37500 over ~2850 hours or $13/hour) and suffer a ~2500bb downswing at worst

If you can beat 2/4 online for 5bb/100 you are one of the best poker players alive and you can definitely make more than 25$/hr

5/bb or 2.5/ptbb which is standard winrate for solid grinders. At least at 6max, dunno if that's standard in full ring. Oh and I'm talking about 2/4 NL obv.

I am saying that if you 5bb/hr at 2/5 is 25 $/hr and if you can make 2.5/ptbb at 2/4 online you will likely very very rarely meet a player of your caliber at live 2/5 NL.

1/2: 446 hrs @ 10.67/hr
1/3: 452 hrs @ 28.48/hr
2/5: 1795 hrs @ 43.94/hr

I want that program. Where get

pokercharts.com..paid web-based service $19.95/yr..worth it imo tho

Hit the 350 hour mark, my hourly at 1/2 now is $48.62 What sample size is needed to get a reasonable estimate on long term hourly?

100,000 hands which is roughly 4,000 hours will put you at probably +/- 10% of your "true hourly"

Interesting, where did you get this rule of thumb (100k hands)? Is that an accepted standard? Would 100k hands also apply to online? Just curious.

Yeah those are just ballparks that I remember from playing online.

The real point: the long term is much longer than you realize.

The reason why so many losing players think they are winning is because they are actually winning. If you are a "bad" or break even poker player it is entirely possible that you will wind up being a winner for your entire life playing live because of variance and sample size.

Coming from limit (where the edge seems so small), I've always been a big believer in the long run stuff and dejectedly accepted that I'll probably never really get a handle on how I'm actually doing in this single lifetime.

However, do you think the same applies for live NL? It just seems our edge is so much more massive as the mistakes some players make are just so mind numbingling bad. It really only takes me benefiting from one or two massive mistakes a night (mistakes so large that can't be made in limit) which pretty much guarantees me going home a winner most nights. I'm also guessing that on-line simply isn't populated with as many of these poor players (although I haven't played a single hand on-line, so I have no idea)?

Ghopingthatmylolsamplesizeof520hoursisagoodindicat ionofthefutureG

Haha, how many hour sessions do you play where you are gaurunteed to go home a winner? like a 10 hours session is 250 hands or so and variance alone (KK v AA, and losing a race) and you go home a loser.

Aggression increases variance and the passivity live makes it less variance. That is to say, if people were constantly putting their stacks in with draws live you'd have to gamble more but most aren't so you don't have to.

I am saying though that natural variance, is enough to guarantee that you can't always be a winner and if you are break even it is entirely possible that you run hot enough that it will give the appearance of you being a winner for years (although eventually time catches up to us all).

I was a SNG grinder when I first started playing poker and fml that gives you an interesting conceptualization of variance. So much of your winrate depends on the long term and playing a ton of games so that getting it in 60/40 eventually evens out. You run a little hot, have a bunch of 80/20's hold up and its like you are printing money. Lose more than your fair share of 60/40's and you wonder if you are even a winner.

Everybody will eventually go on such a large downswing they will wonder whether or not they were ever a winning player to begin with and if they just got lucky. If you haven't just hope that you die before it does, its pretty brutal.