The following I've quoted from the first page in this thread (it's way near the bottom of a long page of info):

I think it's fair to have a containment zone where people can feel free to post their winrates / hours, and according to that quoted paragraph above this thread provides that (along with many other things, such as BRM, etc.).

Gnothingwrongwithpostingwinrates/hoursinthisthread,imoG

Everyone is going to run the same with a large enough sample size.

Too bad that sample size would probably take a dozen or more lifetimes to achieve in live poker.

Unfortunately, I don't have the complete time investment or bb/100 winrate component, but this is my lifetime graph profit currently @ $44,022.49 (the $47,049.71 is the max ever hit) spanning 12 years and 2060 sessions. Bear in mind several years I didn't play poker at all and several more years I was starting from scratch @ $2NL on PokerStars before Black Friday and then $4NL on Carbon post Black Friday. But, currently I'm playing $200NL Full Ring and Shorthanded and $500NL Shorthanded (no full ring offered).

If you look at the real world (not the poker world), almost nobody is constantly obsessing about their $/hour statistic.

When you go to a job interview, do you ask them what the starting ANNUAL salary would be? Or do you ask them how much $/hour you would be earning? 99% of people are asking about the ANNUAL salary and not asking about $/hour. Even during job interviews discussing sales positions (commission-based compensation and not salary compensation), people will usually ask about what a typical salesperson will make in his FIRST YEAR instead of asking what a typical salesperson with earn $/hour.

What most of the "noobs" are looking for when they scroll through this thread is an answer to the following question:

"If I were to sign up to be a 1/3 NL semi-pro or a 2/5 NL full-time pro, what would my yearly profit likely be?"

Why are they looking for an answer to this question? Well, they want to compare it with the annual salary that they are currently getting at their current job in the real world. Or they want to compare it with the annual salary that they think they would likely get at their first job in the real world.

In the great scheme of things, the only thing that matters is yearly earnings/profits (whatever you want to call it). The primary determinant of that is volume. You can never really know what your true winrate (short-term noise will confuse you and a win-rate playing only 15 peaks hours/weak is going to be vastly different than 35 hours played at peak AND non-peak hours/week) is, but you always know exactly what your volume is.

^^^^ Not really sure I agree with any of that, but that's moot anyways.

Bottom line is there should be a place for people to post winrates / hours, and this place is it.

GcluelesswinratespostingnoobG

Most (not all) of the posters who have been posting win-rates lately have been bragging to stroke their egos. The ones who have been posting win-rates over large sample sizes are actually doing a service to others, but they are the small minority.

I enjoy reading through the winrates as sometimes i question my own. On a sick heater have won 38 of my last 39 sessions. Thread keeps me grounded as having read it I realize the bottom can drop out at anytime. So for me it has been educational.

There is a pretty subtle line between brag versus posting. Can someone post a winrate that most would consider fairly decent without it also being considered a brag?

There's also a recreational / hobbyist aspect to this too. Do recreational golfers track / compare their handicaps? Ditto recreational baseball players with their batting average? Recreational hockey players with their goals/assists? Sometimes part of the fun of the hobby/sport is comparing where you fall with your peers / teammates / competition.

GcluelessbraggingnoobG

The difference is that someone posting a big win-rate over 100/200/400/800 hours (small sample) is bragging and not giving any helpful info.

If someone posted a graph of 4k hours played at live 2/5 NL with a big win-rate, that would likely be a brag too, but it would be very useful info (big sample) for aspiring 2/5 players.

See the difference?

I just don't see the point of bragging about ******ed small sample sizes. It just misleads people about what people can actually earn at LLSNL...just so you can have dick-measuring contests with people on the internet.

Is it that hard to believe that the only reason why people are posting in this forum is, for one way or another, to feel good about themselves?

Why would anyone post mediocre results in this thread?

I can't think of any good reason.

ATsai, what have you posted in this thread that's helpful?

Even online takes a considerable amount of time for a wr to even out.

I've played vs so many mediocre regs with pretty big leaks/ spew pop in, run crazy hot for a long time, and only after a ton of volume does it even out and they eventually disappear.

I remember one guy who blew way way up. A bad hyper aggro "pro" that never quit, played insanely long sessions, and loved hu.

He played 16 tables for like 12+ hours a day for 7+ months before he finally disappeared.

Dude was an epic degen.

I player searched him the other day. He was playing 50nl with a $25 stack.

--

It's totally within reason for a mediocre / bad lol live pro to get blown way way way up and never ever fully come back down in his/her lifetime.

PLO is worse.

Use the search function and judge for yourself.

i would say that informing people that don't realize that their WR really doesnt have much value would constitute as helpful.

I know you also coach, but I'm assuming you're a full time pro with poker as your main source of income.

What has your volume been like for 2015? What does your volume look like in a typical year?

You clearly have never played with OP.

I'm a rec/part time player who only gets to put in about 25-30 hours a month. I've been putting in this amount of volume for about 2 years, and don't expect volume to change going forward.

I have other money making hobbies that pay fixed amounts per hour (I'm a musician). Assuming I enjoy both poker and playing music the same, what else to have have to care about to make EV decisions other than winrate? No, I'm not worried about risk of ruin.

Being that volume has been and will continue to be consistent, isn't winrate the only other factor to determine level of success?

Not everyone is a full time pro.

Then I would think you would need 50 buy-ins for a bankroll. Are you on the west coast? Action isn't strong enough where I play for this to happen to me on a regular basis when I run bad. However, I was in the game for $850 a few days ago, with only ~$275 of it left sitting in front of me. I went home stuck ~$350.

When it comes to tangling with the donkeys, most of the time you're the "Big Dog" but sometimes you find yourself being their tree stump.

If I buy-in for $300, run it up to $700, well I'm outta' there if there's several big stacks. I am not going to risk my 133% profit + my buy-in on a hand or two. Which is why you'll never see me writing about my 1k+ score.

I look at it like this: I bought a stock at 10am for $300, it's 2pm & it's worth $700. Day's over as the stock is too volatile.

Of course, having only a 15 mile ride home makes this an easy way to play. I can go home, kick the dogs, slap the wife, chill for awhile & go back in the evening.

I did. See mostly insults disguised as help...

Why even play live poker if you won't play deep stacks vs bad players.

These big sustained win rates everyone gets wet about itt depends on it

+1! Tell me how you really feel Brother!

All this downswing talk always reminds me of Bryan Devonshire's comments in an article he wrote in CardPlayer magazine. He mentioned that he once went on an 18 month downswing!

He did not go into the particulars, however, 18 months is 18 months.

Of course he doesn't have the same pool of Rec/Donk players we do, but still.

This is a pretty important point IMO. If a guy just cherry picks the softest games (I´m guilty of this) he can have a big hourly yet will never make anything comparable to the grinders putting in 60hrs/wk.

You know those guys....... The ones, who when they score a big win, rack up their chips & make what I call the "Peacock Walk" going around the room holding their racks stopping to talk to their friends.

When they get felted for the night, you won't see them walking around the room stopping to talk to their friends [empty handed] & tell them what a rough night they had.

Wow this is so opposite to my thought process. I play mostly 1/2 and live for times when I'm sitting on 300+ bbs along with a bunch of others at least as deep. 100bb or less stacks is so much about pre-flop and simpler to play.

The deeper the stacks, the bigger the mistakes and bigger edge skilled post flop players have against rec players.

Couple days ago i had ~700 in front of me when they broke my table and sent me to another with 3 people that had me covered. Ran that up to 2k by getting involved in situations that just don't ever come up with 100bb effective stacks.

Also never underestimate the impact having a huge stack relative to max buy in has on your table image.

My main game is 1/2 with 300 cap. If they changed that to 300 cap or buy in equal to largest stack at the table I'm very confident my win rate would increase by 30-60%.

Sent from my LG-D801 using 2+2 Forums

This advice isn't all that bad. It covers 1/3rd of Bryan Devonshire's 18 month downswing.

Now me, if I were to go "pro" when I was young, I'd have 75 buy-ins & 1 years expenses in the bank. I'd prefer 100 buy-ins.

I'd also have to be good enough to win what I need to win to live the lifestyle I want, sitting at the table for 30 hours a week max, 50 weeks a year max. Preferably 48 weeks. Gotta' have my vacations.

Otherwise, I'd rather be an "I.T." pro with health insurance.

I see so many 25-35 yr old grinders who are so freakin' out of shape but weren't when I knew them 5 years ago. Their sleep patterns are all screwed up, they don't get any exercise & they don't eat right. No way in hell will they be in good enough shape at 45 yrs old to grind thru all the hours at the table that they do now.

lol. My thinking is the exact opposite of this. Winning image+deep stacks=a game worth sticking around for.

Never count your (profit/losses) when you´re sitting at the table IMO.