Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Winrates, bankrolls, and finances Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Two Plus Two Forums
[OFFICIAL] Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

02-05-2016 , 08:57 PM
Yeah, OMG, pokerz is soooo easy peasy, amirite??? Just show up and print the monies!!!
02-05-2016 , 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I started playing live regularly after moving to a place where there is a poker room within 15 min drive. Since then I have about 400 hrs at $54/hr playing $2/$5 I know I know......BULL**** right?
You'll fit right in around here.
02-05-2016 , 10:46 PM
Walk like a donk, talk like a donk, but win money?

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
02-05-2016 , 11:32 PM
Ya'll keep grinding your ****ty game, I'll keep grinding ultimate poker at the local casino.

I make tree fiddy an hour doing it, thats right
02-06-2016 , 12:03 AM
Last I check, if you only count the winnings, you'll never lose.
02-06-2016 , 12:25 AM
Playing loose when you re short and tight when you re deep seems the opposite of optimal.
02-06-2016 , 12:50 AM
It makes perfect sense if you think about how little you are risking when you lose...
02-06-2016 , 01:08 AM
It's usually these people who keep terrible records of their actual hours and also blow money in sides
02-06-2016 , 01:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueLagoon32 Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I need some input. Last night at my local 2/5 game I caught up with a buddy, well he's just a 40-something fella I'm chummy with at the table. Decent guy who doesn't seem to have a reason to bull****.
We were talking about our winrates over our lifetime, he has >1000 hrs & I have 300.

Now, basically, he told me that his average hourly rate is $45....At 2/5...Over those 1000+ hrs. First words out of my mouth were "bull****." We were talking quietly between us so he had no reason to be pulling my leg in front of the others.

The only thing he does differently to me was he plays a short-stack strategy, 2x$200 bullets (max buy in is $400 here), plays very loose at the start, then tightens up when he's deep.

Please tell me, is this bull****? Do any of you have >$40/hr rates at 2/5, over at least 500 hours?

Also: He said he thought $45/hr was LOW. I asked him why he doesn't grind full time then, and he explained how when he grinded years ago, he played scared, but when it's for fun, he plays well/profitable.
Is beating 2/5 for $45/hour or more realistic if you're good enough? Absolutely.

Now...

Based on what you've shared, I can almost guarantee you that he doesn't beat the game for anything remotely close to that (if he's even a profitable player at all). There were so many fails in his description of how to play. Everything about it is bad.
02-06-2016 , 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I'm starting to believe $80-100 an hour is attainable in my local market which regularly sports multiple tables, 200 BB max buyin and a bigger 5-10 or 10-10 game often going.
Parx?
02-06-2016 , 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
It makes no sense if you think about how little you are winning when you make a hand...
fyp
02-06-2016 , 04:10 PM
When you're a losing player, you mostly think about how to lose less.
02-06-2016 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
Those shows are pretty full of it. I can't imagine making much profit if you need to pay so many contractors to get the job done.
Nah, it is like poker.

Everyone tries it. Top 5% succeed.
Most that succeed find other ways to use their talents.
02-06-2016 , 06:29 PM
Pizza is only so big, you can't invite too many people.
02-08-2016 , 11:37 PM
I have a 7k roll, and I'm wondering whether it's more profitable for me to buy in for 300 at 1/3, or buy in for the full 500 with someone taking half my action, assuming we split profits and losses. Of course this depends on my win rate, but I'm wondering if there's a point of equilibrium, or if 300 with no stake is absolutely more profitable so long as my win rate is greater than zero.

I know buying in for the full amount is most profitable, but for me it's not worth the increased variance/risk of ruin. Also, is it reasonable to split profits/losses with someone who's staking you for half of your investment?
02-08-2016 , 11:44 PM
300 on your own. And you could absolutely cover 500 on your own with $7k roll at 1/3.
02-08-2016 , 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illmatikk Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I have a 7k roll, and I'm wondering whether it's more profitable for me to buy in for 300 at 1/3, or buy in for the full 500 with someone taking half my action, assuming we split profits and losses. Of course this depends on my win rate, but I'm wondering if there's a point of equilibrium, or if 300 with no stake is absolutely more profitable so long as my win rate is greater than zero.

I know buying in for the full amount is most profitable, but for me it's not worth the increased variance/risk of ruin. Also, is it reasonable to split profits/losses with someone who's staking you for half of your investment?
I wouldnt get staked if I were you. Buy in 300 if you feel shortrolled.

Best reasons to get staked in cash games is because you plan to play a much bigger games then usual because of a it's going to be vwry juicy.. otherwise you will regret it when you do run good.
02-08-2016 , 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kekeeke Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
I wouldnt get staked if I were you. Buy in 300 if you feel shortrolled.

Best reasons to get staked in cash games is because you plan to play a much bigger games then usual because of a it's going to be vwry juicy.. otherwise you will regret it when you do run good.
I'll also be glad I got staked when I run bad, so that's not really the point. I'm just wondering if it's more profitable to get staked while playing with 500, since the increased win rate of playing deeper could compensate for the fact that I have half my action, plus the rake is proportionally lower since pots will be bigger on average.
02-09-2016 , 12:03 AM
10% of your $300 an hour: $30/hr.

10% of $500 = $50/hr, split that in half = $25/hr.
02-09-2016 , 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
10% of your $300 an hour: $30/hr.

10% of $500 = $50/hr, split that in half = $25/hr.
this of course assumes OP is a winning player.

to your vg point of a few days ago, OP may be driven by losing less, which makes the staking agreement the way to go
02-09-2016 , 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
10% of your $300 an hour: $30/hr.

10% of $500 = $50/hr, split that in half = $25/hr.
You're ignoring the fact that bigger pots increase my edge and proportionally decrease the rake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feel wrath Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
this of course assumes OP is a winning player.

to your vg point of a few days ago, OP may be driven by losing less, which makes the staking agreement the way to go
If I thought I was a losing player, I wouldn't play poker.
02-09-2016 , 12:57 AM
you've left out the most important details

- do you have another source of income?
- if so, how much and how easy would it bee to replenish your roll?
- is the 7k your total money in the world or is this purely a poker roll?
- what is your monthly nut?
- how much you currently win over how many hours
02-09-2016 , 12:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illmatikk Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

If I thought I was a losing player, I wouldn't play poker.
nor would most losing players
02-09-2016 , 01:03 AM
Really depends on if a lot of your opponents (especially opponents worse than you) sit deep.
02-09-2016 , 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illmatikk Winrates, bankrolls, and finances
You're ignoring the fact that bigger pots increase my edge and proportionally decrease the rake.
You do realize that the example of WR includes all that?

I am surprised that you are still arguing it...I mean, it's pretty ldo.

      
m