Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-02-2017, 12:48 AM   #19201
Sashua
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: peninsula
Posts: 98
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
All I can say is "LOL"


Ed Miller is a fool


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sashua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2017, 02:20 AM   #19202
pocketzeroes
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,333
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
I'm reading some Ed Miller right now and he said at 2/5 if you're a winning but not elite player "would'nt shock him" to hear about you going on a $30k downswing. That's 6000 bbs playing live poker. WTF?
Well...

The math:
A winning player might have a std dev of 100BB/hour (perhaps more - I think mine is currently calculated at 120BB/hour). The standard deviation per N hours grows with the square root of N. So this would be the same as a std dev of 1000BB/(100 hours) or 2000BB/(400 hours).

However, 2 or even 3 standard deviations shouldn't be "shocking." (3 standard deviations below expectation is about 1 in a 1000). So a winning, but very unlucky, player could find themselves running 6000BBs below expectation after 400 hours, if they're playing some fixed strategy with a std dev of 100BBs/hour.
Add in not too many more hours at a lowish winrate, and you've got a 6000BB downswing over hundreds of hours.

The reality:
I tend to believe that there's something amiss in all of the straight stat stuff. For one, I think it's possible to play a winning style with very low variance - much lower than 100BBs/hour - and I think most winning players would naturally gravitate towards this style when on a bad streak (and probably just quit before going 30k in the hole). And I think a lot of what "variance" actually is in poker is when players occasionally make very bad decisions, then correct for those bad decisions in future play. For example, maybe a winning player tilts off a buy-in once every 50 hours, but not more frequently. Although this would affect the variance calculation, it's more of a constant effect on the winrate than actual statistical variance.

tl;dr:
Yeah the math seems to imply that a 6000BB downswing is very possible. But the math might actually be wrong in terms of what actually happens in real life.
pocketzeroes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2017, 08:42 AM   #19203
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketzeroes View Post
Well...

The math:
A winning player might have a std dev of 100BB/hour (perhaps more - I think mine is currently calculated at 120BB/hour). The standard deviation per N hours grows with the square root of N. So this would be the same as a std dev of 1000BB/(100 hours) or 2000BB/(400 hours).

However, 2 or even 3 standard deviations shouldn't be "shocking." (3 standard deviations below expectation is about 1 in a 1000). So a winning, but very unlucky, player could find themselves running 6000BBs below expectation after 400 hours, if they're playing some fixed strategy with a std dev of 100BBs/hour.
Add in not too many more hours at a lowish winrate, and you've got a 6000BB downswing over hundreds of hours.

The reality:
I tend to believe that there's something amiss in all of the straight stat stuff. For one, I think it's possible to play a winning style with very low variance - much lower than 100BBs/hour - and I think most winning players would naturally gravitate towards this style when on a bad streak (and probably just quit before going 30k in the hole). And I think a lot of what "variance" actually is in poker is when players occasionally make very bad decisions, then correct for those bad decisions in future play. For example, maybe a winning player tilts off a buy-in once every 50 hours, but not more frequently. Although this would affect the variance calculation, it's more of a constant effect on the winrate than actual statistical variance.

tl;dr:
Yeah the math seems to imply that a 6000BB downswing is very possible. But the math might actually be wrong in terms of what actually happens in real life.
+1.....well said, Sir
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2017, 11:22 AM   #19204
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,366
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz View Post
GG - the reason you don't see 2000 hour graphs at 10+ BB/hr is because it's incredibly difficult to do for a variety of reasons. Most people "move up" at a certain point so the stake they have the most hours at remains stagnant. Win rates theoretically decrease as you rise in stakes and frankly it's just damn hard to put in 2000 hours at a stake as a recreational player.

The nature of poker is people come and go. Look at the number of posters that seemingly disappear. I've noticed quite a bit of turnover at my primary room. Could those people have become enlightened and moved on from poker? Sure, possibly. But they could also be busto / tires of losing / came to the realization they were just a fish on a heater.

I've logged 3500+ hours since 2015 and realize it's a damn tough game and nothing about it comes easy. I made a really dumb comment in here in early 2016 when I said I thought poker was easy - yah it's easy when you're running good, but scrape away the variance and you are left with the eternal grind that is poker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
WJs sample size is over 2000 hours. Most people don't live in this weird Trooper/GG world of playing the smallest stakes for infinity. Players that are doing well tend to try to play bigger. I was already taking shots at 5/T within a few months of playing 2/5 full time.

In B4 "1/3 is the highest stakes regularly spread here"

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
Yeah, I don't disagree with this (i.e. takes a long time to put in 2000++ hours at a rec stake recreationally / most people lose and move on / people who crush rungood early may move up if they have that choice / etc.). There's probably other reasons too (tax avoidance purposes / crushers at this level may have grown tired of hanging out and posting with us noobs / etc.).

But I *still* hear this 10bb/hr thrown about lazily, and I'm just not as convinced as everyone else is that it is nearly as easy to accomplish, especially at the lower 100 max BI stakes where rake is a lot more killer than at higher stakes / higher BI games. I just find it odd that this is the winrates thread, and, as far as I can recall, no one has posted a 10bb/hr winrate at the lowest staked / non deep BI game over significant hours, and yet it is still taken as a bible quote.

Gnotsayingit'snotpossible;justsayin'G
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2017, 12:58 PM   #19205
johnnyBuz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnnyBuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Beast Coast
Posts: 7,092
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
But I *still* hear this 10bb/hr thrown about lazily, and I'm just not as convinced as everyone else is that it is nearly as easy to accomplish, especially at the lower 100 max BI stakes where rake is a lot more killer than at higher stakes / higher BI games.
It's not - and this is one of the very few things I see eye to eye with a nit like you GG You remember when I was first posting. I was crushing every single limit I played. Wonder why? Cuz I didn't "run bad" in big pots. People can talk all they want about playing well crushing etc. but at the end of the day you need to run good in big pots to achieve >10 BB's/hour over a reasonable (but not significant) sample size and the further you get past 1000, 1500, 2000 hours etc. at a given stake the more likely you are to see mean reversion to the generally accepted figures that fall within mathematical confidence intervals.

I've played a **** load of hours since 2015 (>3500). I'm near 6 figures lifetime profit. I went on a nearly 1000 hour break even stretch!. Things can always be much much worse than people can possibly imagine. I am well past that breakeven stretch. My game hasn't remarkably changed - I'm better now than I was 6 months ago and I was better 6 months ago than I was the 6 months prior to that, but none of that matters because the "short term" in poker can easily last thousands of hours.

I used to cling to my win rates as the end all be all of poker and compared myself to other players. And then one day I realized none of that matters. So much of poker is out of your control that it doesn't matter to worry about the minutae that cannot be controlled.

/full-time jaded grinder rant
johnnyBuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2017, 01:13 PM   #19206
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,366
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Yup, definitely one of the things we agree on Johnny.

This is why I put zero stock in examples of people saying "lolz @ 1/3 NL live, I played 600 hours and crushed at 15bbs/hr before moving up". It's just very likely they ran well (although undoubtedly played well and were a winner), but it's likely their numbers wouldn't have held up over the long term. Want to crush poker live small stakes? Play loose. Play aggressive. AND run good. You'll destroy the game. For a while.

One of my fave giraffes on here is from Duke. It's awesome cuz like 50% of his winnings come in like the first 1/6th of his time (or something like that, I'd have to search for it).

GcluelesswinratesnoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2017, 01:39 PM   #19207
ZuneIt
veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Where I can find out how2play poker
Posts: 2,160
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by poketzeros
The math:
A winning player might have a std dev of 100BB/hour (perhaps more - I think mine is currently calculated at 120BB/hour). The standard deviation per N hours grows with the square root of N. So this would be the same as a std dev of 1000BB/(100 hours) or 2000BB/(400 hours).

However, 2 or even 3 standard deviations shouldn't be "shocking." (3 standard deviations below expectation is about 1 in a 1000). So a winning, but very unlucky, player could find themselves running 6000BBs below expectation after 400 hours, if they're playing some fixed strategy with a std dev of 100BBs/hour.
Add in not too many more hours at a lowish winrate, and you've got a 6000BB downswing over hundreds of hours.

The reality:
I tend to believe that there's something amiss in all of the straight stat stuff. For one, I think it's possible to play a winning style with very low variance - much lower than 100BBs/hour - and I think most winning players would naturally gravitate towards this style when on a bad streak (and probably just quit before going 30k in the hole). And I think a lot of what "variance" actually is in poker is when players occasionally make very bad decisions, then correct for those bad decisions in future play. For example, maybe a winning player tilts off a buy-in once every 50 hours, but not more frequently. Although this would affect the variance calculation, it's more of a constant effect on the winrate than actual statistical variance.
Concerning your statement in bold - wouldn't that require the player exiting the game when he buys in for $300 & is now sitting on $600?

The reason I ask, I am more tight than aggro, but much more aggro than I once was. Last year I'm sitting on $700 [1/2NL] with a whale at the table. I end up winning 1.2K in 5 hours. We get it all in. I had Broadway OTT & he had 2nd set. He called it a day after that & so did I, as he was the reason we were there.

Now, some 1500 hours later of my usual $18.25 an hour, [1/2 ~80% 1/3 20%] my win rate is back down to around $19.20 or so when you filter it so it starts from the date of the BIG win. StdDev: 109.573. Still don't know how the Crushers do it for 10BBs an hour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poketzeros
tl;dr:
Yeah the math seems to imply that a 6000BB downswing is very possible. But the math might actually be wrong in terms of what actually happens in real life.
Thanks. Reinforces my belief that you need a 10K bankroll to play 1/3 buying in for $400.00. I can't imagine me going on a 7k downswing. The roll is insurance & making it possible to not think of the chips as money. Like you said - math vs. real life.
ZuneIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2017, 01:46 PM   #19208
browni3141
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 5,114
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
Yeah, I don't disagree with this (i.e. takes a long time to put in 2000++ hours at a rec stake recreationally / most people lose and move on / people who crush rungood early may move up if they have that choice / etc.). There's probably other reasons too (tax avoidance purposes / crushers at this level may have grown tired of hanging out and posting with us noobs / etc.).

But I *still* hear this 10bb/hr thrown about lazily, and I'm just not as convinced as everyone else is that it is nearly as easy to accomplish, especially at the lower 100 max BI stakes where rake is a lot more killer than at higher stakes / higher BI games. I just find it odd that this is the winrates thread, and, as far as I can recall, no one has posted a 10bb/hr winrate at the lowest staked / non deep BI game over significant hours, and yet it is still taken as a bible quote.

Gnotsayingit'snotpossible;justsayin'G
Restricting the sample to the same stake is not reasonable, IMO, as long as people don't pick and choose. This excludes a lot of 10BB/h win-rates, I think.
browni3141 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2017, 02:04 PM   #19209
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,366
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
Restricting the sample to the same stake is not reasonable, IMO, as long as people don't pick and choose.
But I'd rather it would be listed by stake / max BI, because I believe the smaller you go in both then the more massive the effect of rake is. I just get the feeling everyone is considering all stakes / max BI the same in this regards, when I don't believe they are.

Sorta like the difference between a 2/4 Limit vs 4/8 (with kill) Limit game; if both games have the same rake, there's a *massive* difference between these two very similar stakes (one is beatable, admittedly for not that much, while one is pretty much unbeatable), but both of these would get simply lumped into "live low stakes Limit".

GcluelesswinratesnoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 02:50 PM   #19210
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

$73.62/hr for July baby!

Gotta love those 17 hour samples with PLO in them.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 03:50 PM   #19211
Ranma4703
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: she / her
Posts: 3,008
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

**** if we want to do July winrates, I'll brag
almost all 2/5, tiny bit of 5/5 PLO
Ranma4703 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 04:02 PM   #19212
Avaritia
Confirmed 2500 hour haver
 
Avaritia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,215
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
I'm reading some Ed Miller right now and he said at 2/5 if you're a winning but not elite player "would'nt shock him" to hear about you going on a $30k downswing. That's 6000 bbs playing live poker. WTF?
I think my shock factor would be around $8k for 2/5 100bb cap.

As in i wouldnt be that shocked to hear that a winning player lost 16 buy ins. I think $5k is approaching upper bound and $10k is time to pick up another hobby.

I also think that those limits are rarely reached bc of selection bias (players with those kinds of losses simply drop from the pool never to be seen again)

Ignoring recreationals with income of course. They can lose forever. Which is why they are the real winners.
Avaritia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 04:20 PM   #19213
GatorXP
old hand
 
GatorXP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Out of the Theater
Posts: 1,792
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avaritia View Post
I think my shock factor would be around $8k for 2/5 100bb cap.

As in i wouldnt be that shocked to hear that a winning player lost 16 buy ins. I think $5k is approaching upper bound and $10k is time to pick up another hobby.

I also think that those limits are rarely reached bc of selection bias (players with those kinds of losses simply drop from the pool never to be seen again)

Ignoring recreationals with income of course. They can lose forever. Which is why they are the real winners.
Let me add to your shock factor, winning players represent a wide range of std. There are downswongs and outliers that make 16bi look like child's play. Of coarse you rarely hear from those folks cuz they aren't much into posting on 2p2, they take up fishing or maybe a long walk into the dessert, its Usually only the cool kids lagging it up and sun running.



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
GatorXP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 04:38 PM   #19214
browni3141
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 5,114
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avaritia View Post
I think my shock factor would be around $8k for 2/5 100bb cap.

As in i wouldnt be that shocked to hear that a winning player lost 16 buy ins. I think $5k is approaching upper bound and $10k is time to pick up another hobby.

I also think that those limits are rarely reached bc of selection bias (players with those kinds of losses simply drop from the pool never to be seen again)

Ignoring recreationals with income of course. They can lose forever. Which is why they are the real winners.
I went on two distinct downswings of $6844 and $7364 already at 2/5. I'm still running at $42.40 overall over 1188.2 logged hours. Almost all of my sessions during those downswings were in a 120BB cap game.
browni3141 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 04:40 PM   #19215
Avaritia
Confirmed 2500 hour haver
 
Avaritia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,215
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Now imagine if they were together. Youd be fishing right now (and much happier imo)
Avaritia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 05:01 PM   #19216
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

A poster in another thread just posted a cone chart that I thought might tickle the fancy of some of you bankroll nerds/nits/aficionados

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=54
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 05:04 PM   #19217
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I guess that your "shock factor" depends a lot on how you view statistics and poker results in general. I've seen and experienced some pretty brutal down swings, and watched mouth breathing droolers sun-run for months on end while half the table just thinks that the guy is a genius.

If someone told me that a guy ran 4 standard deviations below expectation I'd probably just shrug and say "either he's actually a loser, or just unlucky".


Although maybe playing poker for so long has destroyed my ability to be shocked by *anything*.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 05:56 PM   #19218
randomcards
adept
 
randomcards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 794
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Hey all, 3 questions...

1. Anybody have a real feel for how much winrates vary from weekdays vs. Fri/Sat (2/5 - 5/10 NL specifically)?

2. Any reads on how much winrates vary if you are an unknown 'good' player vs a known good player?

3. Thoughts on my 5/10 shot taking strategy below? Good or foolish?

Background

I am a rec player with a job that requires travel to a lot of various cities. Been playing poker regularly for ~10ish years, played online for a year before black friday and was a marginal winner at NL50/100 stakes.

About 3 years ago I moved from 1/2 to 2/5 live. I play about 30-35 times a year. Unfortunately I haven't tracked hours and detailed win stats, as I have previously measured success purely by bankroll size (which of course also serves as occasional petty cash to make the wife happy). In the last 3 years when moved to 2/5 I started keeping a mostly separate bankroll which went from 0 to $31K.

Question 1 Above
I have played 2/5 in probably 30 casinos in the last few years and am definitely now a winning 2/5 player, most of those sessions are weeknight sessions against probably a tougher crowd than a weekend.

Question 2 Above
At the same time, I recognize that I often sit down in a weeknight 2/5 game as an unknown 'rec looking' player, usually in a suit or some business attire. I am better than they usually give me credit for based on stereotype, and often I can get away with moves in a single session that wouldn't work long term against 2/5 pros. In fact I have won some big hands by giving off false 'yuppie businessman fish' tells in 1 or 2 key spots a night, which only works once but I am rarely around for more than 1 session in that city. I believe this inflated my winrate somewhat (question 2 above)



Question 3 Above
In the last 6 months I have been wanting to take some 5/10 shots. Here is approach on this, looking for suggestions or "you are foolish fish".

A) Only on Fri/Sat nights when I hopefully am not the only rec player
B) Only when the casino is spreading higher limits so I don't have the best of the best at my table
C) Generally I'll only play for a single 1k buyin; this is less about bankroll than I want poker to be fun and I'm not to the point where losing 2k+ in a session is 'normal'
D) If my 5/10 shot results swing to the net negative I'll stop for a while

I've only played 6 sessions (I know 0 samplesize so I don't pretend I am a winning 5/10 player) for a +$8,800 result. That included 1 +4k rungood session and one tough beat where I lost a $3000 pot as an 86% fav when money went in. Is it foolish to keep taking shots while in the net positive?
randomcards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:09 PM   #19219
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,366
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Does 5/T still count as low stakes? I'm guessing the question might be slightly above the heads of most on this forum, although there are probably some here who are knowledgeable on this.

G1/3NLforlifeG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:11 PM   #19220
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,517
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Bringing 1 bullet sounds pretty silly. You're ganna play awful
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:16 PM   #19221
MIB211
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,011
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomcards View Post
Hey all, 3 questions...

1. Anybody have a real feel for how much winrates vary from weekdays vs. Fri/Sat (2/5 - 5/10 NL specifically)?

2. Any reads on how much winrates vary if you are an unknown 'good' player vs a known good player?

3. Thoughts on my 5/10 shot taking strategy below? Good or foolish?

Background

I am a rec player with a job that requires travel to a lot of various cities. Been playing poker regularly for ~10ish years, played online for a year before black friday and was a marginal winner at NL50/100 stakes.

About 3 years ago I moved from 1/2 to 2/5 live. I play about 30-35 times a year. Unfortunately I haven't tracked hours and detailed win stats, as I have previously measured success purely by bankroll size (which of course also serves as occasional petty cash to make the wife happy). In the last 3 years when moved to 2/5 I started keeping a mostly separate bankroll which went from 0 to $31K.

Question 1 Above
I have played 2/5 in probably 30 casinos in the last few years and am definitely now a winning 2/5 player, most of those sessions are weeknight sessions against probably a tougher crowd than a weekend.

Question 2 Above
At the same time, I recognize that I often sit down in a weeknight 2/5 game as an unknown 'rec looking' player, usually in a suit or some business attire. I am better than they usually give me credit for based on stereotype, and often I can get away with moves in a single session that wouldn't work long term against 2/5 pros. In fact I have won some big hands by giving off false 'yuppie businessman fish' tells in 1 or 2 key spots a night, which only works once but I am rarely around for more than 1 session in that city. I believe this inflated my winrate somewhat (question 2 above)



Question 3 Above
In the last 6 months I have been wanting to take some 5/10 shots. Here is approach on this, looking for suggestions or "you are foolish fish".

A) Only on Fri/Sat nights when I hopefully am not the only rec player
B) Only when the casino is spreading higher limits so I don't have the best of the best at my table
C) Generally I'll only play for a single 1k buyin; this is less about bankroll than I want poker to be fun and I'm not to the point where losing 2k+ in a session is 'normal'
D) If my 5/10 shot results swing to the net negative I'll stop for a while

I've only played 6 sessions (I know 0 samplesize so I don't pretend I am a winning 5/10 player) for a +$8,800 result. That included 1 +4k rungood session and one tough beat where I lost a $3000 pot as an 86% fav when money went in. Is it foolish to keep taking shots while in the net positive?
I say go for it. You're a rec player, so if you take some losses it's not really a big deal. You're a winner at 2/5, and playing 5/10 will probably be more fun for a while given the higher stakes. I'm in a similar spot as you and think next time I'm at a casino where 5/10 looks good I'm going to play.
MIB211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:20 PM   #19222
Dream Crusher
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Dream Crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas
Posts: 15,670
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I think in general 5/T games have become a lot more grinder-heavy in the past couple of years. It would likely be more profitable for you to stay at 2/5. That being said, I like the general approach you would be taking...ie if you can find soft 5/T games then feel free to take shots.

However, the idea that you would only bring one buy-in is ****ing terrible. So you're gonna play 1 hand and then go home? There is no way you can play optimally like that especially in 5/T games where at times players are going to put you in tough spots when you have marginal holdings.
Dream Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:22 PM   #19223
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,517
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIB211 View Post
I say go for it.
Don't listen to him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
However, the idea that you would only bring one buy-in is ****ing terrible. So you're gonna play 1 hand and then go home? There is no way you can play optimally like that especially in 5/T games where at times players are going to put you in tough spots when you have marginal holdings.
Listen to him
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:29 PM   #19224
nicname
grinder
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big 12
Posts: 627
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomcards View Post
Hey all, 3 questions...


2. Any reads on how much winrates vary if you are an unknown 'good' player vs a known good player?
If I could go back to being an unknown commodity in my regular room, I would in a heartbeat.
nicname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2017, 06:43 PM   #19225
randomcards
adept
 
randomcards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 794
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Crusher View Post
However, the idea that you would only bring one buy-in is ****ing terrible. So you're gonna play 1 hand and then go home? There is no way you can play optimally like that especially in 5/T games where at times players are going to put you in tough spots when you have marginal holdings.
A single 5/10 buy-in, but if I lose it I'll go play a normal 2/5 session same night. I recognize that may make for some quick 5/10 shots. One of my 1k losses was actually on the first hand I sat down.

I called a $50 raise in the BB with QJ; Flop comes 9104x. We get it all in, villain had 10-9 for flopped 2 pair and I whiffed.

I just went and played 2/5.
randomcards is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive