10k hours = 300k hands though which is a very meaningful sample if your winrate is 30bb/100. Ofc you can run under that but even running under you should still be winning significantly.

5k hours, or 150k hands, as we'll see is a small sample for an online winrate of ~5bb/100 but if you're close to 25-30bb/100 in the live game, the variance should once again be relatively negligible over that sample.

It's when we get down to 1k hour samples and less that variance can make things pretty meaningless.

FYP for precision's sake.

I just started looking at my stats for another big graph update now that I'm over 4600 hours. Looking at them I now doubt that there's anything really meaningful in there. My winrate is not all that impressive, and I know from sitting in the games that I do I should be winning 2-4x what I am. Just seem to be the un-luckiest bastard at the table day in and day out. If I didn't understand the math of the spots I got into I probably would have quit a while ago.

Most poker players routinely do three things.

1. Overestimate their skill level

2. Underestimate their opponents skill level

3. Believe they run bad

Reversing the first two and not worrying about the third would improve most players results by a wide margin.

jmo

lol +1

Great thing about live poker is that it is a social game. People play the game for different reasons, and many of them have nothing to do with winning.

It is why many of the very successful poker pros don't have extended downswings. I get people routinely showing me better hands because they like me...and people genuinely feel bad when they suck out against me.

Losing can actually be hard sometime, lol.

There are rec players who could keep playing. Basically semi-whales who are high Vol and +EV in some conditions, enough they may be winning players overall.

Not all crazy recs are losing players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Games are good

Without going into too much backstory I have been considering taking a run at live cash for the last few months. I live in Mexico and there is a consistent game that runs everyday. There are 2 tables running at most but consistently go and the biggest game is 25peso/50 peso which is anywhere between 2$/4$ or 1.5$/3$ depending on where the exchange is at that given time. There is no opportunity to move up in stakes since the the biggest game that runs is 2$/4$ so all shot taking will be done on a mini poker vacation somewhere else which I have done several times with mixed results.


The total bankroll that I am willing to allocate towards this is $5,000/90k pesos.

The games are incredibly soft, a very limp happy passive game consisting of about 30 local regs, 20 very soft fun players/10 or so straightforward TAG and then whatever tourists walk into the casino wanting to play. I live in a tourist town so there are always 1 or 2 people in the game on vacation which can go wither way towards raising or lowering the average skill at the table. I have had a lot of success in the past month or so (about 20 sessions). I have won at an insane win rate about 16bb's/100, and while I very much understand it is not sustainable I am definitely a favorite in these lineups. I am confident in my game against this player pool but not arrogant. At the current exchange rate I have about 40 buy ins (these games start shallow, the average buy in is usually about 50bbs and then get progressively deeper as the session goes on usually finishing with 4-5 people sitting a couple 100bbs deep.


My question is with this info am I justified in employing the following strategy towards bankroll management?

At the current bankroll, after winning sessions reinvesting 75% of my winnings into my bankroll and setting aside 25% for savings/ investment opportunities here.


When the bankroll gets to 100bis skewing the formula to 40% savings/investment 60% back into the roll?

I have separate life roll if truly necessary but the majority of my expenses are covered by rents paid, I several small cash flowing properties which take care of the month to month expenses.


In a truly soft game, and with a 40bi roll can I justify taking 25% of my winnings out of my roll? It is as close to a stagnant player pool as possible, there is very little adjusting done in the games and I have a very good idea of realistic win rates. Does this seem overly ambitious or in line?

It seems fairly reasonable imo.

My question is, do you plan to move at all or travel to potentially play bigger games? If not, then it doesnt really matter how much you put back into your roll as long as its not shrinking, as the game appears to be so soft that you're unlikely to go on a 20-30bi downswing.

If you have some ambitions of taking poker further, then I would start off by putting all of it back into your roll, as playing bigger = bigger w/r and thus the "reinvestment" in your roll grows at an exponential rate. Absent of this however, I agree that splitting the money between investments and your roll is the best option, no point in having 200buyins sitting around not doing anything

Actually, it may very well be sustainable (depending on rake, or even more beatable. In live, we usually talk about win rates per hour, rather than per 100 hands.

As you look through this thread, you'll see that as close as we come to a consensus on max sustainable LLSNL win-rates is 10bb/hour. Live is just that soft.

16BB/100 hands is only about 5-6BB/hr. That's not an insane win rate at all. Its pretty good, and probably better than 90% of players, but not thru the roof at all.

Ftfy

Yeah, could be 95%. I asked a good solid young player the other day how many 2/5 players he thought were winning. He has no idea Im a 2+2er and I have no idea if he is or not. His answer was 7%. My personal guess has always been 12-15% or so.

95% might be low for 5-6BB/hr winners. I think a minimum of 90% of all players are losing players. I'd guess 2% of total players make 5+ bigs an hour.

It's conceivable that a player pool in a non-major city has so many equally bad players that only 1 or 2 players are actually winning in long term. Basically all the money just gets swapped around between players.

It's like that in a lot of rooms that only spread limit games.

This is the way I look at it. In a rake free world, you would expect around 50% to be winners and 50% losers with maybe the winners being around 40-45% because large winners take a disproportionate amount of money.

The question then is how many players are made losers by the rake. It's tough to say. I would guess that the rake take outs 1-2BB per hour per player, so I would say that 25-35% are winners. but most of them should be marginal winners.

The 10BB winners who make a living out of this should be a tiny minority comprising 1%-2% of the player pool.

Winning players average far more hours than losing players. Sure, some losing players grind the hours but a ton of them play just a few times a year if that.

Seems a pretty poor guess to me.

At 1/2 it is probably closer to 4-5 BB per hour in rake.

Not sure where that quote comes from, but the average hand rakes about 2BB in LLSNL as far as I can tell, so there would need to only be 10 hands/hour for that to be accurate. 5-6BB/hour for rake seems more likely.

I'd guess even at 2/5 I pay closer to 8-9bb/hr in rake. But this is vs highest rake in the world.

Yeah, lolstralya rake is absolutely ridic.

I USA #1, a cap over $5 (not counting BBJ and promo drop) is pretty rare, and one over $10 is unheard of at any licensed venue, afaik.

Tables average about 100 an hour, maybe slightly more at 10% rake to 5 (per dealers/room managers). I'm used to same take for all games.

So 3bb/hr at 1/3 2bb/hr at 2/5 and 1bb/hr at 5/10. Dividing rake by 10 for full game, probably should be a bit higher for LAGs and for sitting all hands as much as possible at table


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes.

At my casino, 10 handed table take averages 320-340 per hour at 2/5 and 280-300 at 2/3. Our rake is higher than most but we don't tip which evens it out slightly