I'm actually a bit torn between calling this just random sampling differences even at 1000 hours, and the difference in the rake. That extra $4/hand in decent pots is a killer. It's bleeding money from you when you win, and from the fish as they pass chips back and forth, leaving them with less for you to take.

I think I'd just play in the room with lower rake out of general principle.

Hi guys!

First off, let me state that I totally understand this is very subjective matter and has alot to do with the individual.

However, I am curious to see what finance minded individuals would suggest for my specific circumstances.

Monthly Nut: ~2200-2500 (factoring in savings/investments, entertainment, fixed and non fixed expenses and a 10% increase for anything overlooked)

Income:

1) Mrs Deadfish works a pretty stable, albeit commission based job and brings in aprox $2000 after taxes every month, she works as a hairstylist and there is a solid job market for her and potential raises/bonuses.

2) I play poker fulltime, Expect to earn 20-30k a year pre-tax

3) Rental income, we have a small apt attached to our house and earn $500/month, could potentially earn more but we rent to family and cut them a good deal.

Liabilities:

1) We have an older but solid house

2) two dogs in good health

3) two cars, one from 2013 and one from 2004

Other notes: We are not very materialistic and live below our means.


Any advice or suggestions are greatly appreciated!

EDIT: I should note the current amount being allocated to investments/savings is <$100/mo

haz teh dum today.

Looking for advice on emergency fund amount.

I've played there before, and pretty sure it's unbeatable in the long run by most people, so it's weird that he thought there were more "grinder" types there.

The fact that $14 is taken out of every $140+ pot is a joke. Think about it, if you win a pot HU you only win ~$56 instead of ~$70. Your win rate is gunna take a massive hit.

Play downtown ainec

3-6x monthly nut is the old standard response. But I would think in your case you might need to be on the higher end of that since your monthly nut is so low but some emergency expenses are relatively fixed in cost.

having the dumdum today.

Can you clarify?

Thanks!

He means that you don't count your Netflix, Cable TV, and Starbucks budgets. Anything that you can cut without starving. In a true emergency you scale back those things.

Certain costs could still hurt you really bad even if your monthly nuts is low.

getting a major car repair costs XX whether your monthly nut is 2k or 20k, same for some home repairs/replacements, etc.

Ah that makes a bit of sense,

you still think it should scale up even though I have multiple income streams?

Guy with 20k income can probably cut back a lot easier to sustain the hit, where as 2k income is already barebone, so you need a lot more emergency funds.

Thanks for your opinion man, after really thinking about it I've come to the same conclusion. Its a mix of run bad, less exploitable (ie: weak tight grinder wannabe) opponents and higher rake. I also probably spew a bit more there out of frustration as well. Logical adaptation would be to stop playing there I guess

One thing many people overlook is your debt load. If you have no debt then you don't need as big of an emergency fund. If you have car/house payments you can't afford to miss then not so much.

My wife and I have spent our first year of marriage doing very little financially other than bringing our income to bear on our debt situation and it's paying off.

what's the best app to use for logging live sessions? input appreciate, thx

Pornhub

Lol'd

ok ok the american people have been begging me to post a 2/5 graph with a (legitimate???) sample so here goes

my total 2/5 dating from february of 2014 - May 2016, includes like 7-800 hours of $500max:



this graph is only deeper 2/5



longest break-even was like 300 hours

longest stretch under minimum wage was like 500 hours

biggest downswing ~$5.5k lol

biggest upswing upswing $50k in 250 hours

youre welcome

edit:

also, just for fun heres my graph that includes 1/2 and 5/10 and some plo, not a huge difference from total 2/5 graph, but it gives 900 more hours

The graph clearly shows profit, what good do your little squiggles do?

youre interested in the squiggles???????????????

damn what a waste of 9 minutes to post that

Shhh...he doesn't know that number of hours x hourly = profit.

it is my right to post how i want as long as im not breaking any of the rules on 2p2

You high?

always

i pretty much dont ever get on this website sober anymore

Sick volume and stats. Your win rate is nearly identical at $500 max and deep so not sure what that means.

Can't believe that is your smallest downswing. After running $68/hour for 400 hours I went into a $16,000+ downswing losing 19 of my last 20 sessions at 2/5. Needless to say it has ****ed with my psyche.

i just looked at it a few minutes ago, i was going to post it separately but chose to only post the deep one... anyway, it showed my 500max at around 52 and my deep around 62

regardless, its not a huge difference (and now i just realize, maybe thats what you meant??)... i just have a different perspective on it from most regs (i think conventional wisdom of most live regs is that deep is significantly more profitable than shallow, right?) because when i first started playing deep, i thought there would be only a small increase in my WR, but I happened to have a big upswing as soon as I started playing deeper. So then I thought that playing deep games was significantly better than playing shallow. But as I played more deep, I went through a nasty break-even stretch, and then another healthy upswing, and then finally just a long period where I was winning like $40/hr and hugely disappointed as it was going on.

At this point, my opinion changed and I realized a few things about deeper games

1) the increased variance will negatively affect most non-elite poker players because it'll put you on tilt more and make you play your C-game for longer periods while there's more money at stake.

2) you play against much better competition. at the 500max games, most of the fish just give their money away and the regs/pros suck a lot. at 1000max games, everyone still sucks a lot if you work hard and are smart, but i think they suck quite a bit less than your average opponent at a deep 1/3 or shallow 2/5 game. also, these games will usually attract some players in the player pool who are either as good, better, or slightly worse than you are. this # of equally skilled players goes up/down depending on how good you are yourself.

3) there can be huge fluctuations in how much money you make over 500 hour periods, even 1k and 2k hour periods potentially, which i think may be a shock to many inexperienced players. i think i had a 1k hour stretch where i made $80k and another where i made $40k. not that thats an enormous difference, but on the otherhand, at deep 1/3 and shallow 2/5, i have a much more consistent profit amount over 200-hour periods, which would be considered a small timeframe in a 1k 2/5.

i think more time on your c-game, less opportunity to be in super juicy games compared to shallow 2/5, better competition, and potentially even less hands/per hour are all reasons why most people won't see huge differences in their winrates between the two.

and of course, im not saying deep games are tough at all. almost every 1k and 1.5k max 2/5 ive played in has been crushable for a very nice living. but by contrast, in a 500max, you play your Agame more because youre literally never in a tough/annoying spot, you play more fish/whales, you play against less winning players because the game isnt as "fun"/no one wants to be seen "slummin' it"/or whatever irrational reason, you may get more hands per hour, you may have less competition for table change/seat change.

ideally, you just play the game thats most profitable obviously. unless you're an elite poker player, then i guess always play biggest. but i think if you're just a very good/hard working player, on your a-game, have nice br, etc then strictly sticking to the deep game and not even considering the smaller/shallow game might be a mistake.