Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Winrates, bankrolls, and finances Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

01-19-2016 , 11:20 AM
This whole win rate discussion is useless. There are so many different styles of poker. Some come with incredible variance and some come with low variance. The super low variance style also comes with a low win rate because you are never pushing small edges, but you can win a high percentage of sessions if thats what you are trying to do. The high variance style may come with a higher win rate if you are good at it, but it will take you 10 times as many hours to know if you are really winning and its much harder to be good at this style. Somewhere in the middle is the proper merging of aggressiveness / variance and win rate, but there's no way of knowing exactly where that is especially when every table is different.

If you are constantly raising the flop all in with lots of draws and 4 betting all in preflop with AK, then your variance is going to be a hell of a lot higher than a set miner.

All you can do is play YOUR style perfectly and not tilt away money, not try to bluff calling stations, not fold too easily to maniacs and things like that and see what happens.

One last thing, if your win rate is high for an extended period of time, that doesnt mean its only because you are running hot. It may be because you are better than most other players and they cant accept that fact. There is no pokertracker for live play so nobody knows what anyone else is winning so dont act like you do. If someone posts that they are winning 15BB / hr and you are winning 7BB / hr they may actually be better than you and not just be on a heater.
01-19-2016 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
This whole win rate discussion is useless. There are so many different styles of poker. Some come with incredible variance and some come with low variance. The super low variance style also comes with a low win rate because you are never pushing small edges, but you can win a high percentage of sessions if thats what you are trying to do. The high variance style may come with a higher win rate if you are good at it, but it will take you 10 times as many hours to know if you are really winning and its much harder to be good at this style. Somewhere in the middle is the proper merging of aggressiveness / variance and win rate, but there's no way of knowing exactly where that is especially when every table is different.

If you are constantly raising the flop all in with lots of draws and 4 betting all in preflop with AK, then your variance is going to be a hell of a lot higher than a set miner.

All you can do is play YOUR style perfectly and not tilt away money, not try to bluff calling stations, not fold too easily to maniacs and things like that and see what happens.

One last thing, if your win rate is high for an extended period of time, that doesnt mean its only because you are running hot. It may be because you are better than most other players and they cant accept that fact. There is no pokertracker for live play so nobody knows what anyone else is winning so dont act like you do. If someone posts that they are winning 15BB / hr and you are winning 7BB / hr they may actually be better than you and not just be on a heater.
Winrates, bankrolls, and finances I love this thread.
01-19-2016 , 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldiesel Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
The thinner you go the less you make for taking more risk/volatility. It's the same concept.
I wouldn't even want to play poker if I wasn't trying to maximize my hourly without regard for variance.
01-19-2016 , 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philepistemer Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I wouldn't even want to play poker if I wasn't trying to maximize my hourly without regard for variance.

I seriously am trying to figger out what you are saying here...the tripple negative is causing me some issues - can I get a translator to "dumb this down" for me
01-19-2016 , 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squid face Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I seriously am trying to figger out what you are saying here...the tripple negative is causing me some issues - can I get a translator to "dumb this down" for me
He luvs him sum variance.
01-19-2016 , 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squid face Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I seriously am trying to figger out what you are saying here...the tripple negative is causing me some issues - can I get a translator to "dumb this down" for me
I believe:

I would only want to play poker with the goal of maximizing my hourly. I understand that playing in such a manner may require more variance than other playing styles.

or (my standyby favorite)


Spoiler:
01-19-2016 , 12:17 PM
lol typing monday when it's tuesday.
01-19-2016 , 12:27 PM
Pretty sure 9 posts is too small a sample size to draw any meaningful conclusions about the quality of the content ... right?
01-19-2016 , 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Pretty sure 9 posts is too small a sample size to draw any meaningful conclusions about the quality of the content ... right?
Not necessarily...I knew my poasting was **** after #2 or #3.
01-19-2016 , 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samball49 Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
So this is my first time posting in this thread after reading for months. The fact that everyone boasts $20+/hour winrates at 1/2 and 1/3 is intimidating. When I talk to winning $5/10+ players they all say that they didn't win more than $12/hour when they were grinding up from $1/2. I realize I am running bad over a small sample size but I am probably only winning $10 or so an hour. Am I doing a lot wrong or are these $20/hour winrates just really unsustainable?
If you're a winner in this game, you are in a very rare minority. Don't undervalue that / take that for granted.

GgoodluckG
01-19-2016 , 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by `Fearu Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Ok so I hate the term crusher and beatable, and I'm also going to throw out an idea that will probably be highly disagreed upon, I think it is possible to win in every single session at 1/2 or 2/5.

for a game to have enough variance to change a 8 hour session so drastically it either has to be an extremely loose game were people are stacking off extremely light, think PLO, because I have never played in this good of a NLH game. Or the reverse a really hard game where players are good and one or two coolers is impossible to come back from in a single session, and if I was playing in this type of game I would get up and leave.

Most no limit games are somewhere in the middle and they are also very consistent and I personally believe that if I lose a single session chances are I made mistakes that I can learn from. Even if I do get coolered there are typically enough mistakes being made that I can recoup whatever was lost all within a single session.

I always say if I feel like I was running well or running bad, but if I lose I always feel like there are plays I could have made to make it a winning session
Lol. Even if you play absolutely perfectly (whatever than means), whether you win/lose a single 8 hour session is mostly up to chance.

The thing that will separate you from everyone else at the table (and hopefully make you a long term winner) is that in those sessions where everything goes horribly wrong that you lose less than your opponents would in the same spot.

GcluelessvariancenoobG
01-19-2016 , 01:12 PM
Hi. I've been reading through some of this thread and I wanted some advice on moving up limits. I currently play 2/3 and have a massive hourly. I'm at $45.89/hour over 150 hours at a game that charges $5/hour and has rake 10% capped at $10.

I know this is a really small sample size and this hourly is probably not sustainable but how much longer should I play before trying some 2/5?

I don't think I'm good at poker (although I think I am probably one of the better players in my 2/3 pool) and I have sessions where I tilt off a few buy ins. Should I just wait a few more hundred hours to see where variance takes me? I'm a little scared of moving up even though the skill difference can't be that big.
01-19-2016 , 01:17 PM
Just take a shot. I didn't know how to wipe my own ass at one point, but then I just tried and it wasn't so bad.
01-19-2016 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squid face Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I seriously am trying to figger out what you are saying here...the tripple negative is causing me some issues - can I get a translator to "dumb this down" for me
Yeah, I kinda used poor wording.

It would depress me to sacrifice winrate to lower my variance.
01-19-2016 , 02:37 PM
If the $2/5 game looks better than the $2/3 game, take a shot at $2/5. If you recognize bad players, see a lot of chips and booze, or other indicators the table is good, play.
01-19-2016 , 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by IbelieveinChipKelly Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
disagree. if you have a $200 max loss, you shouldn't go broke if you have a proper bankroll and never use poker income for anything else.



of course you aren't going to win $200 every day and you aren't going to lose $200 every day that isn't a winning day.

That's not what the quote said. It says stop win.
01-19-2016 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Actually most of them won't be able to beat it, because they think they're too good and will try to LAG it up.

What's more annoying than a know-it-all player at the table? A higher stake "pro."
QFT. Some of my best wins have come from higher stakes throwing away "chump change" while they wait for their table to open up.
01-19-2016 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoltan Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Not necessarily...slim knew my poasting was **** after #2 or #3.
FYP
01-19-2016 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiteMeFish Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
FYP
yes
01-19-2016 , 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
If you're a winner in this game, you are in a very rare minority. Don't undervalue that / take that for granted.

GgoodluckG
Thanks man.
01-19-2016 , 04:01 PM
as gg said, you're a winner in the game. That's a great place to start. You can probably still improve a ton in your game and that's something you should seek to identify and then work on.
01-19-2016 , 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Pretty sure 9 posts is too small a sample size to draw any meaningful conclusions about the quality of the content ... right?
I think the specific words typed onto the screen have a lot more meaning than how many times a person has typed words onto said screen. You may think differently but I know lots of people who never STFU and still never say anything worth while. You can include most politicians in that list.
01-19-2016 , 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by andees10 Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
So never try to get better at poker, just sit at the table for more hours?
Depends what you want. If you want to be better at poker, improve at poker. If you don't want to live under a bridge, play more hours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCabForTootie Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Value betting thin will cause you to earn less because your volatility goes up?
You're not making less, the ratio of (dollars)/(volatility unit) decreases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCabForTootie Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Calling down a big polarized river shove takes a certain amount of cajones. Not to mention, betting isn't always optimal. Maybe these guys who are "puss sissies" and are calling you down with top pair because you're too aggressive?
The decision is always between call and fold and raise is never considered. The guy last week who check/tank-called the 2nd nf to a river $40 bet didn't check to induce, he's a box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by philepistemer Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I wouldn't even want to play poker if I wasn't trying to maximize my hourly without regard for variance.
Good for you, you're allowed to have this perspective. I didn't say everyone needs to see it this way or that no one's allowed to see it this way. I'm just explaining some consequences of it.
01-19-2016 , 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldiesel Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Depends what you want. If you want to be better at poker, improve at poker. If you don't want to live under a bridge, play more hours.

If I want to eat cheeseburgers, I'll eat cheese burgers. If I want to be entertained, I'll watch a band play. What is your point?

You're not making less, the ratio of (dollars)/(volatility unit) decreases.

So you make more? What is it you're arguing? I don't even anymore...

The decision is always between call and fold and raise is never considered. The guy last week who check/tank-called the 2nd nf to a river $40 bet didn't check to induce, he's a box.

Or he owned you. I'm guessing he owned you.

Good for you, you're allowed to have this perspective. I didn't say everyone needs to see it this way or that no one's allowed to see it this way. I'm just explaining some consequences of it.
You've explained nothing.
01-19-2016 , 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwslim69 Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
yes
Lol

      
m