[OFFICIAL] Winrates, bankrolls, and finances - Page 530 - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash

[OFFICIAL] Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

View Poll Results: What is your Win Rate in terms of BB per Housr

Less than 0 (losing)

5 6.41%

0-2.5

0 0%

2.5-5

6 7.69%

5-7.5

8 10.26%

7.5-10

15 19.23%

10+

26 33.33%

Not enough sample size/I don't know

18 23.08%

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 530 of 1069

First

30 330 430 480 510 520 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 540 550 580 630 730 1030

Last

Page 530 of 1069

First

30 330 430 480 510 520 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 540 550 580 630 730 1030

Last

02-09-2016 , 01:13 AM

#13226

Illmatikk

centurion

Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 182

Quote:

Originally Posted by feel wrath

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

Yeah I have other sources of income and 7k isn't all the money I have, so I could buy in for 500, but since I've just moved up to 1/3, I'd rather buy in for 100bb, at least at first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by feel wrath

nor would most losing players

Thank you for letting me know that losing players should play with less money.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:14 AM

#13227

Richard Parker

banned

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 13,949

Quote:

Originally Posted by feel wrath

nor would most losing players

Poker rooms would be empty if losing players quit playing.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:17 AM

#13228

ZuneIt

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,160

I always thought the majority of losing players do eventually quit. They're just replaced with more losing players.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:18 AM

#13229

Richard Parker

banned

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 13,949

Sure, most losing players do quit.

But have you ever met a losing player?

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:21 AM

#13230

Illmatikk

centurion

Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 182

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

You do realize that the example of WR includes all that?

I must've missed it in your thorough analysis, can you explain how the identical winrates include all that?

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:23 AM

#13231

Richard Parker

banned

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 13,949

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illmatikk

I must've missed it in your thorough analysis, can you explain how the identical winrates include all that?

Seriously?

$300 BI, $30/hr.

$500 BI, $50/hr.

That's a 67% bump for buying $200 more...

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:30 AM

#13232

Illmatikk

centurion

Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 182

Whoops

Quote

02-09-2016 , 12:07 PM

#13233

suited fours

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 4,143

The question is mostly just a hypothetical. The psychological difference of being staked, or not, would be the most important factor for the vast majority of players. (affecting winrate and enjoyment)

Quote

02-09-2016 , 12:29 PM

#13234

YGOchamp

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 1,555

I think a $20/hr hypothetical winrate for simply buying in more is well accounting for a psychological discrepancy.

Staking rarely makes sense unless you honestly need the money to be able to play.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 12:36 PM

#13235

Mr Sandbag

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 251

Buy in for $500 on your own. Assuming it's not a private game where everyone buys in full and the game plays bigger, it won't make much of a difference. A lot of casino players will buy in for $300 or less anyway.

Also, nobody mentioned that you can always just start out buying in for $500 and if things don't run your way in the beginning you can "drop down" to $300. Example: if you lose 5 BI of $500, your bankroll will be down to $4.5k which is still 15 BI of $300. Absolutely no reason to get staked with a $7k roll for 1/3 if you are a winning player. You'd just be costing yourself profit and delaying your advancement to higher stakes.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:02 PM

#13236

Richard Parker

banned

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 13,949

It takes literally 1 hand for $300 starting stack to be $500...

I really don't understand people's obsession with buying in max, other than some sort of ego related issue.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:04 PM

#13237

bip!

Slow Pony

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 14,204

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

It takes literally 1 hand for $300 starting stack to be $500...

I really don't understand people's obsession with buying in max, other than [b]some sort of ego related issue.[b]

^fixed

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:09 PM

#13238

kekeeke

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,306

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

It takes literally 1 hand for $300 starting stack to be $500...

I really don't understand people's obsession with buying in max, other than some sort of ego related issue.

It takes 1 hand to go from 500 to 1000

And 2 hands from 1000 to 2000.

it the snowball effect

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:12 PM

#13239

Richard Parker

banned

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 13,949

Yep, win $1000 in a 4-hour session, submit mortgage application for 1 million dollar.

Come on dude...

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:13 PM

#13240

Mr Sandbag

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 251

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

It takes literally 1 hand for $300 starting stack to be $500...

I really don't understand people's obsession with buying in max, other than some sort of ego related issue.

Because when we have an edge the more money that is on the table the higher our win rate? Not sure why this would even be debated, especially at live 1/3 where our edge increases with deeper stacks.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:22 PM

#13241

Richard Parker

banned

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 13,949

Well, there is effective stack, and there aren't that many idiots who stack off 166bb enough for that extra 66bb to matter much in long run.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:27 PM

#13242

philepistemer

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 554

Just buy in full on your own and go on the stake if things go poorly at the start.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:27 PM

#13243

cAmmAndo

The Situation

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,727

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

It takes literally 1 hand for $300 starting stack to be $500...

I really don't understand people's obsession with buying in max, other than some sort of ego related issue.

Yeah mostly this. Yes occasionally a fish on a heater will out pace you and you will wish you had started deeper but buying in 300 as standard and adding on to get deeper with fish is going to be very similar wr to blindly starting at 500 esp since 1/3 is a new level for op IMO.

My advice would be to really focus on game selecting and seat selecting if you aren't already, buy in 300 unstaked and give yourself the flexibility to keep an eye out for "special" spots where topping to 500 seems particularly +EV. (Ie. a "special" player deep and to your right).

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:29 PM

#13244

philepistemer

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 554

Also, come on, if you bust a 7k roll playing 1/3, then brm is the least of your worries poker-wise.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:30 PM

#13245

Mr Sandbag

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 251

The value of deeper stacks doesn't only come from villains punting their stacks when we have a value hand though.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:33 PM

#13246

Illmatikk

centurion

Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 182

I guess it makes more sense to just buy in for 300 and see whether I'm significantly better than anyone deeper than I am, or if any good players are deep as well, and just determine whether topping off to 500 is worth it based on each new session/table.

But there are definitely plenty of bad players who will stack off 150bb+ at these stakes.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 01:44 PM

#13247

YGOchamp

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 1,555

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

It takes literally 1 hand for $300 starting stack to be $500...

I really don't understand people's obsession with buying in max, other than some sort of ego related issue.

Peronsally I try to always match the 100% of the big stack buyin, primarily for ego related issues. I never actually use my stack or make any big bets, but I feel like a big man. And isn't that what poker is all about?

Quote

02-09-2016 , 02:14 PM

#13248

Richard Parker

banned

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 13,949

Yep, why else do losing players play?

Quote

02-09-2016 , 02:48 PM

#13249

squid face

ChatThreadPrez

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 11,468

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Sure, most losing players do quit.

But have you ever met a losing player?

hey. I dont keep track of my results per se...but I do pretty well in the games. I win more often than i lose and I know I am better than most players here.

Quote

02-09-2016 , 02:56 PM

#13250

bip!

Slow Pony

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 14,204

Funny that the thread spends a lot of time talking about how to get rid of variance... yet variance is the only reason poker thrives. We should really thank and celebrate variance.

2/9 - official variance appreciation day henceforth

Quote

Page 530 of 1069

First

30 330 430 480 510 520 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 540 550 580 630 730 1030

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 530 of 1069

First

30 330 430 480 510 520 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 540 550 580 630 730 1030

Last