Majority of posters in this threads are probably one bad swing away from deleting records and quit tracking them.

So how statistical relevant are these records anyway?

If you can't wait till you have "4k in a stuffed envelope" before you buy-in to poker as a legitmate investment, then in all honestly you probably shouldn't be playing.

Your going to have to play way too tight only having 2-3 bullets in any given month and won't be able to really learn anything because you won't be able to play correctly. imo you should just save that money and store it for a few months until you have at least $1500 or so saved -- but even at that point its hard to play correct poker if the money matters too much to you.

Not very

Biggest assumption is "investment."

Well, I took his post as implying he was trying to take the game seriously, hence why he's here in the first place. If he wanted to continue playing recreationally then by all means go fire off a few bullets with your spare money, just don't expect much absent of a sick heater.

It's one of those catch-22's.

If you're really a winning poker player, you wouldn't ask whether BRM is necessary. For BRM to matter, you probably need to be a winning player first.

1. 75 hours is absolutely nothing, period. It's mathematical fact.

2. If you're playing a certain way (sub-optimally) because of your BR situation you're not really going to get better anyway. Also, your family would spend the money if you had more than $300 but they wouldn't touch an envelope stuffed with $4k??

My suggestion is to play when you can and learn to live with having to go home in 20 minutes if you run bad and bust. Just focus on making profitable decisions. And top up to 100bb every time you fall below. If you are out of money to top up, take what you have left and save it for next time.

I'm a live 5/10 NL reg, my hourly is ~$100/hr @ live game that I play , 40 hrs a week.

I am wondering if it's possible to make $100/hr playing on Bovada ?

Is there anyone making 100+/hr @ Bovada ? If so, what stakes are u playing to achieve that rate?

No it's not.

Probably a better question for one of the online fora, or even the Bovada thread in Internet poker.

Most of us here are live only, or only dabble in online. A few are 50/50ish, but of those most are playing on multiple sites or on Stars from outside the US, as far as I know.

You can say all of this. You'd be wrong, but you can say it. I'm just gonna leave this right here. I suggest you purchase either this or something like this to start to understand what it's kinda obvious that you have no idea about (and don't take that as an insult, I'd say probably < 40% of people actually have an understanding of statistics, so you're not bulg any means alone)

You answered your own question!

Everything we do in life is evaluating edges and estimating risk, whether it is something as mundane as "can I go to the grocery store before doing blah blah blah but I only have X hours to do it all" or something less mundane like playing poker. The less risk involved, the less difficult the decision is to make. If you can't get to the grocery store today, tomorrow it is still there, extremely minimal risk, extremely easy decision.

As you pointed out you play tighter with a small amount of money, probably because you don't want to lose it because you want to play more. But then imagine if you had 4K (+ the ability to make it grow). Then those small edges that you see people continually talk about, we can capitalize on them. A spot like QQ vs AKs AIPF is a 53/47 edge. If you only have 300 and you lose, you're out. If you have a bankroll that can hand it, that situation actually "earns" you $12 every time ($200 BI at 1/2) it happens. The problem is you don't get $12 every time and get to walk away up $12. If you run that scenario over a statistically significant sample, X times, you will win 53% of them and lose 47% and it will mathematically work out that you are positive cash X*$12, so if X were 1,000 and that was statistically significant (which it's not, see my answer to question 1), you would be up $12,000. This is why cash games are also considered "1 long session"

Mreps,
I tried to get your spreadsheet on Google docs but it said you have to approve shareing.
Can you just send me a copy or am I missing somehing?

I would like to give it a try.

Thanks

Let me try this then.

January 1/2
6 sessions, 54 hrs
1 win

$-1486

lol scrubs who run bad itt

*doom switch*

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uu

Of course, but the normal SDs are known (60-100) so we have an idea of what is needed. Every sample size question can be answered with this: http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

That link was for an older version. Ill pm you a the new link.

I think I am done for month of January....so I can post results. Brag post for sure. Since I last posted 15 days ago or so, I've been continuing to crush 2/5 live here in Jax, FL.

Hours Played: 157 hours, 47 minutes
Profit/Loss: +$8,080.00
Cashed Sessions: 16/21

2/5: $ 6,564.00 profit
5/10: $1,516.00 profit (Only 1 session, 6 hours played till game broke. Was a very good game though)

Was a great month boys!

Good job, nice volume.

I feel like I've been torched for asking a question. Maybe I phrased it wrong, and I apologize. I understand that live play inherently results in smaller sample sizes than a mathematical model could. And I understand that the smaller your sample size the less reliable the data. OK. I'm sorry. But since the win-rate post has 870 pages of posts, all in the LIVE LOW-STAKES forum, I thought I was asking the question in the correct place.

What I really wanted to know, is if live play doesn't provide enough data to make a given person's win-rate reliable, how can you analize live play? Are live results even necessary? How did this forum get to be 870pg? Someone should have posted right away that live results are in-accurate, saved everyone a lot of time and moved on.

As for the BR question. If someone has say, $4k in an envelope to play poker with, do you recommend that person bring all $4k with to the club? If a given session results in the player busting out 3 or 4 times, and keeps buying in, won't the players at the table see him as a loser pouring good money after bad, and just target the loser with $3k left in his pocket?

I see my BR personally, as I can afford to lose this, I don't want to, but I realize it is a possibility, and I play. By being honest with myself, I look back on particular hands and ask if my result was being too tight, scared or whatever and try to learn from my mistake. Also, by playing, I walk the walk of someone who plays tight due to BR issues. If and when I build myself up to consistent, (yet statistically irrelevant) wins, and put winnings away so that I don't worry so much about losing, I will have better insight as how an opponent might be thinking who may also be playing tight due to BR issues. To say a person shouldn't play isn't helpful in this forum. And I was half kidding about the wife and child getting their grubby hands on my hard earned loot!!!😂

And to the AIPF example, yes if that 53/47 situation came up 1000 times, a player would expect to be up around $12k. But, knowing that live play is higher variance, and getting 1000 situations like that might take years, isn't it wiser, as a live game player, to just pick a better spot to get it AI? I'd rather not flip my stack on a 6% edge when I can flip my stack on a 40%+ edge.

Thanks for your comments.

Where is the fun in that? People post mostly to brag and then others challenge that brag. Rinse and repeat.

A lot of these things you need to figure out on your own.

No one (except maybe few with issues) wants to lose money.

Analyzing poker is a lot more than just asking whether you are tight or not.

Blog is ---> way.

If it takes years to run into 1000 53/47 situations, how long you do you think it will take to run into meaningful sample size of 70/30 or 80/20?

Point is, if you skip 10 53/47 situations and only had 1 70/30 situation in the session, you better hope you win that 70/30 or you're gonna be a pretty big loser that session.

And if you don't actually run into a 70/30 situation, you're going to be a moderate loser and hating life for wasting 4 - 5 hours.

The point is that while single samples aren't relevant in small sizes, we can still discuss how things are *actually* going, and maybe aggregate data from multiple players.

But sometimes it's just more of a dick measuring contest


Maybe.

Also possible you get mugged in the parking lot for flashing a wad around.

You should have a stop loss. While you might feel that you're just getting unlucky, it's often hard to see that objectively when you're $900 into a $1/2 game. I like to bring enough for a couple of buy ins more than my typical stop loss because I don't like putting all the money in my pocket on the table. But I also don't always re-buy after a single bust. If the table conditions are bad I just go home.


I think you should play anyway. Try hard to not think about your BR or your results, just your play. But then again, it's good for *me* if you play poorly.


Depends on your bankroll and mindset. If losing a couple of those busts you and tilts you, don't.

On the other hand, being viewed as a player that "gives action" by getting into spots like that will usually help you get more action yourself with your big hands. If you often pass on these spots you may be viewed as a nit. You can exploit both images if you know what you're doing, but generally the action side is more profitable.

You came in here 5 posts deep and basically stated that 75 hours should be statistically significant. I'm not sure what parts of the internet you normally read, but pretty much any forum would flame you for saying something that absurd
the standard is 10k hands online starts to give you an idea. 20 hands/hour average * 500 hours = 10k hands live

I've seen people play 1/2 with 5k in their pockets. Really just a personal preference. Personally, I have a stop loss. If I hit -800 at 1/2, I'm done for the night.
Again, this is a personal thing you have to figure out. Play and don't exploit edges or sit out and save so you can exploit edges later. A big problem you'll find is that the really good posters on here, the ones you want to learn from, they all have good BRM so they exploit those edges. If you post a hand and don't feel comfortable making the plays they suggest, you're not really going to grow as a player

Variance isn't higher in live play, variance is variance. It will just take you longer to realize the true statistical outcome in live play then online.

You can avoid the flip if you want. As your bankroll grows and you play better opponents, small edges, like 6%, are the chasms that separate the ok players from the crushers.

If you can get it in with a 40% edge on any normal occurrence, more power too you. People are not just gonna throw their money at you being a 30/70 dog, especially once you move up stakes to where more players are better

^% is a huge edge. Casinos make billions off of much smaller edges. The trick is, they are bankrolled enough to be a statistical universe.

It's best by far to take the 6% edges and the 40% edges. Guess which one comes along more often and thus has a greater overall effect on your winrate?

If 4-5 hours at the casino without winning or losing much is a waste, you need to step up your hostess/waitress game

I have no problem, but everyone else seems to find not winning few big pots per session some sort of injustice.