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 08-03-2017, 07:56 PM   #19451
JB Clark
banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 673
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post

When you say 5 card you mean Big O? Get dealt 5, play 2? I saw that on the board when I was in DC this spring and thought "that's weird in a casino". I can see that being like Hi-Lo where it's impossible for a whale to imagine that any hand is bad enough to fold.
.
Big O is hi- lo but nobody is playing it right now.

5 card omaha high is all thatl anyone is playing these days. I sat in last night and dumped 3k. Ran just horrible.

But half the players never folded pre, the other half never bet unless they had the exact nuts, so im pretty confident i can beat it

Last edited by JB Clark; 08-03-2017 at 08:03 PM.
JB Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 08:01 PM   #19452
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,525
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Big O is hi-lo
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 08:09 PM   #19453
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGOchamp View Post
fwiw, a lot of "correct lines" are "correct" because they're assuming the opponent has a decent understanding of the game and adjusts accordingly.

If our opponents are horribad, then a lot of seemingly "bad" lines would actually yield a much higher WR in many instances because it's maximizing exploitation as our opponents aren't picking up on the holes in our lines that make them unoptimal in a theory perspective (like donking into somebody with a massive range advantage for thin value and having them bluff raise us 0% of the time so we're actually making more money with a line that's terrible)

I think it makes a lot of sense for bad lines to be successful at lower stakes. You won't be able to replicate that success in bigger games, but it's okay, because you don't need to.
If a "bad line" beats low stakes than its not a bad line. Its the correct line to beat low stakes. If someone cant see that then maybe they should move up to where their allegedly better lines will work better. I use the lines that I feel like will beat the game Im in the best and I couldnt care less about any other games, until Im in them. At that point I will adjust just like I have in every game Ive ever played.

Last edited by MikeStarr; 08-03-2017 at 08:16 PM.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 08:20 PM   #19454
JB Clark
banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 673
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I always found that standard "correct" lines work best at the lowest stakes because they make all sorts of silly mistakes.

For example, if you take a bet flop bet turn line vs say, a flush draw, at 1/2 or 2/5, you can check the river and bluff catch and the low stakes guys will bet much more often than at 5/10. At 5/10 they check back a lot more when they miss, whereas the low stakes guys seem to always bet. So you actually make more taking std lines vs the lower stakes

Also wanted to say something about 500 hour BE stretch. You might be showing down too often. A lot of our winrate is due to making ppl fold the better hand, so start bluffing more imo. There is nothing wrong with showing down 7 high. It actually helps you get paid when you actually have it. Ive played at tables where they think im FOS everytime i raise and all of a sudden im up 4 or 5 bi's

You dont need to force it either. Let the bluff spots come up naturally. Whenever your spidey senses kick in that your opp ia weak and can find a fold, bet big

Last edited by JB Clark; 08-03-2017 at 08:29 PM.
JB Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 08:46 PM   #19455
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,884
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I don't think anyone is naive enough to actually think that there are absolute "good" and "bad" lines. Everything is in the context of how the villains are playing and how we should be exploiting their mistakes. Double barrel bluffing a calling station is obviously bad, while making the same double barrel bluff on the same board with the same hand against a different villain may be completely correct. That's implicit in the analysis that good players give, "that's a bad line to exploit that villain". They just don't explicitly state it.

"Standard" lines at $1/2 or $2/5 are "standard" exactly because they exploit the mistakes that generic/average $1/2 and $2/5 players makes. Or they're "standard" because they're the correct *adjustment* to a specific villain type. Like calling down a maniac light or not barreling an OMC with an underpaid, while you *do* want to value town him with 2 pair because he's not folding his AA after sitting there for 6 hours waiting to play a hand.


I'd argue that if your game is sufficiently weird that you need a lot of non-standard adjustments to exploit your villains, that caveat may make your win rate not comparable to other games. Or maybe that your villain descriptions/reads don't match what other people see, so we're talking about different Vs and different correct adjustments.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 08:55 PM   #19456
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Clark View Post
I always found that standard "correct" lines work best at the lowest stakes because they make all sorts of silly mistakes.

For example, if you take a bet flop bet turn line vs say, a flush draw, at 1/2 or 2/5, you can check the river and bluff catch and the low stakes guys will bet much more often than at 5/10. At 5/10 they check back a lot more when they miss, whereas the low stakes guys seem to always bet. So you actually make more taking std lines vs the lower stakes

Also wanted to say something about 500 hour BE stretch. You might be showing down too often. A lot of our winrate is due to making ppl fold the better hand, so start bluffing more imo. There is nothing wrong with showing down 7 high. It actually helps you get paid when you actually have it. Ive played at tables where they think im FOS everytime i raise and all of a sudden im up 4 or 5 bi's

You dont need to force it either. Let the bluff spots come up naturally. Whenever your spidey senses kick in that your opp ia weak and can find a fold, bet big
Wow. I would say the exact opposite. Its pretty easy to beat people if you check the river to them and they only bet when they have a strong hand and always check behind with missed FDs. The 5/10 games Ive played in aren't that soft at all. Actually at 5/10 they are a lot more likely to raise the flop with their FDs. They don't just call/call/give up

In the 1/2 games I play, they almost never bluff the river when checked to.
The 2/5 games there is a mix of bluffing mixed FDs and checking back depending on how aggro the player is.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2017, 09:12 PM   #19457
momo_uk
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,546
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

July 1/3 results.. feeling so frustrated after winning @35/hr last month

I feel like I'm burning myself out playing too much.. and spewing money in bad spots after getting impatient..

momo_uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 07:34 AM   #19458
LordRiverRat
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,513
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I don't know how people manage to play 200+ hours a month. Especially if you cook and lift too that takes a lot of time. With that volume doesn't leave much room for non-poker activities.
LordRiverRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 08:12 AM   #19459
johnny_on_the_spot
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnny_on_the_spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: S-Mart
Posts: 10,928
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
I don't know how people manage to play 200+ hours a month. Especially if you cook and lift too that takes a lot of time. With that volume doesn't leave much room for non-poker activities.


???

Because it's impossible for people with normal jobs to work 50 hours/week and do those activities?
johnny_on_the_spot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 08:35 AM   #19460
squid face
ChatThreadPrez
 
squid face's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: grabbin c-notes from the money tree
Posts: 10,277
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
I don't know how people manage to play 200+ hours a month. Especially if you cook and lift too that takes a lot of time. With that volume doesn't leave much room for non-poker activities.
That month that I posted that my friend did of 350+ hours was a one off. Completely unbalanced.

I had played full time hours for many many years. I have backed them off recently as I dont really need to make much $ these days. 200 hrs/ month every month is a lot. However I have logged 2150 in a calendar year while taking significant time off and lead a quite balanced life. Time management is a real thing. If you are decent at it you can accomplish quite a bit
squid face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 09:37 AM   #19461
MIB211
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,011
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
I don't know how people manage to play 200+ hours a month. Especially if you cook and lift too that takes a lot of time. With that volume doesn't leave much room for non-poker activities.
People work 200+ hours a month all the time and do those things. That's basically a 9-6 work day which isn't that bad. If you don't have a family that leaves tons of time in your week. With a family too it's harder.
MIB211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 11:52 AM   #19462
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,407
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by momo_uk View Post
July 1/3 results.. feeling so frustrated after winning @35/hr last month

I feel like I'm burning myself out playing too much.. and spewing money in bad spots after getting impatient..
Don't sweat the month-by-month too much, especially results-wise. In the end, you're still winning, which puts you in ahead of the vast majority of opponents you play with, so that's good.

Why do you play? If it is just for fun, no reason to play so much if you are burning yourself out.

GbalanceG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 12:04 PM   #19463
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,407
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
I was told this same thing after 500 hours. After 1000 hours. After 1500 hours. After 2000 hours.
Me too (I was in the *exact* same boat at 2000 hours).

Took me another 1500 hours to more fully comprehend what can happen.

But that's just me, looking at it thru my lens. Maybe you'll have a different viewpoint at 3500 hours than you do now at 2500 hours. Or maybe you won't.

Ganythingcanhappen,andmaybeitwill,butmaybeitwon't, imoG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 12:33 PM   #19464
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,884
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by momo_uk View Post
July 1/3 results.. feeling so frustrated after winning @35/hr last month

I feel like I'm burning myself out playing too much.. and spewing money in bad spots after getting impatient..
That's not so bad a result though. While I've *worked* 200 hours in a month (often), I've never cracked 100 hours of poker in a month (gotten close a few times). But I can tell you that my *work* performance suffers when I start getting too much over that, so if you're also working another job beyond poker I can see getting burned out putting that much time in.

Don't *force* yourself to play in 'bad' games. If the table is ****ty, get up and leave. There's probably more value in getting up, going home, and reading a poker book/article or studying ranges and doing hand analysis off instead.


Now that July is over with, how about some July results?

$1/2 NLHE: +$764 over 21.4 hours: $35.70/hr -- w00t!
$1/2 RxR: +$1151 over 23.6 hours: $48.77/hr -- double w00t!
$1/2 PLO: -$1650 over 14.9 hours: -$110.74 -- mother ****er!

Total +$265/59.9 for $4.42/hr -- meh.

Some of the RxR/PLO sessions are $5 bring in, others are $2. I should really track that but sometimes it changes as the night goes on too. :shrug:

I hesitate to make many conclusions because "LOL sample size" ... but I really feel like the PLO is a bad game. I've only got about 500 hours total for both RxR and PLO combined with pretty breakeven results so far for both. Which given the crazy variance in omaha probably means next to nothing (hell, this month I lost 2-3 $1k+ multiway pots that would have un-****ed my results), and I know I'm not as good at is as I am at HE, but it just *feels* different sitting at the table between the two. The pure PLO game gets gigantic and swingy/spewy that outpaces my BR, while the RxR games seem smaller and make many of the players play *really* badly during the NLHE rounds. /rant
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 02:23 PM   #19465
JB Clark
banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 673
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
The 2/5 games there is a mix of bluffing mixed FDs and checking back depending on how aggro the player is.
I have never played 1/2 so no experience but the 5/10 guys will raise the flop more often. The 2/5 guys bluff all the time. Most of my profit in 2/5 is bluff catching.

Just my personal experience, but in 5/10 you really have to get creative. At 2/5 you really don't. The fundamentals of checking when you are supposed to check and betting when you are supposed to seem to work, for me, much better.

For example, i had a hand the other day at 5/10 where i limped behind with JJ and the button raised and i just flatted and check raised the 872dd flop and gii vs 99. I would never feel the need to get that tricky in 2/5

On thd other hand, at 2/5 I made about 1k in 12 hours and looking back, all of my profit was from bluff catching after playing std flop and turn
JB Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 02:40 PM   #19466
JB Clark
banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 673
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Ok so you need 100,000 hands to be within 1 sigma (what Ive been told) so you can be 95% confident after 3300 hrs that your true win rate is represented by that sample size. So 500 hours is a hefty chunk. If you cant win after 500 hours you might not be a winning player.

The thing is, this is all misleading because if you have a high win rate you can assume you will ALWAYS show a profit after 500 hours. If you played an infinity of hands and chose any random sample of 500 consecutive hours, the chances that any of them are BE are not very high. Thats like 2- 3 months of not making money.
JB Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 02:47 PM   #19467
OvertlySexual
old hand
 
OvertlySexual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,527
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

The word winning does a lot of heavy lifting here. It's different if your true skill is that of a 10BB/hr winner and different if you are a 3 BB/hr winner.

The sample size of your hours should give you a range within which your observed results will deviate from your true winning rate. The larger the sample size the narrower the range of observed results would deviate from your true win rate (which also moves along*).

So for example, after 100 hours, your results may be + or - 25BB from your true Win Rate. After 500 hours they may be + or - 10 BB from your true win rate. And so on.

I am pretty sure that a more statistically inclined poster can provide more accurate ranges than I.

* A lot of posters argue that your skill changes along with the skill of your opponents. But I don't think any change is usually as radical as the one you experience as when you first learn the game and it doesn't compare with the statistical noise you may experience. In other words, I would expect your true win rate to move a couple of points upwards or downwards.
OvertlySexual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 03:16 PM   #19468
LordRiverRat
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,513
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIB211 View Post
People work 200+ hours a month all the time and do those things. That's basically a 9-6 work day which isn't that bad. If you don't have a family that leaves tons of time in your week. With a family too it's harder.
Poker is different. You have to (you're supposed to) do studying away from the tables, there's also waitlists and games breaking that you have to deal with.
LordRiverRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 03:21 PM   #19469
gangip
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,079
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Clark View Post
Ok so you need 100,000 hands to be within 1 sigma (what Ive been told) so you can be 95% confident after 3300 hrs that your true win rate is represented by that sample size. So 500 hours is a hefty chunk. If you cant win after 500 hours you might not be a winning player.

The thing is, this is all misleading because if you have a high win rate you can assume you will ALWAYS show a profit after 500 hours. If you played an infinity of hands and chose any random sample of 500 consecutive hours, the chances that any of them are BE are not very high. Thats like 2- 3 months of not making money.
I'm only responding to this post because I feel a moral imperative to correct such blatant misinformation in a thread that is probably viewed by a lot of well-intended newbies. (I guess also to showoff my knowledge and stroke my e-peen and get that sweet sweet internet cred but whatever)

This post is ridiculous, and the fact that from the first sentence you reveal you have 0 clue what you're talking about should be a huge red flag that should prompt people to ignore what you're saying.


A) You'd need a very low standard deviation to achieve a 95% confidence interval after just 100,000 hands. What numbers are you using for standard deviation? Keep in mind your raw winrate -- aka bb/100 or expected bb/100 -- has nothing to do with the width of a confidence interval. (Note: It can be argued that a high winrate player can be more likely to have a lower std dev bb/100, but that's a different topic that was discussed a few pages ago)

I'd contend you're using extremely unreasonable numbers to obtain your conclusion. FWIW I've played over 5k hours of mid/high stakes live and have seen the revolving door of poker first hand. I've seen guys assume 50bb/100 winrates with 50bb/100 standard deviation (or at least their glistening confidence implied this sort of delusion) and a few months later I'll see them with a nub stack at 2/5.

Human beings are naturally self-deluding; some anthropolgoists argue it's actually advantageous from an evolutionary perspective for a species to be self-deluding. This combined with the overload of greed and results oriented thinking you find in the poker world causes a lot of poker players to be abnormally delusional. I think you're squarely in this group. I mean, you led off an argument by admitting you had to outsource the foundation of your argument to an apparent moron and nevertheless proceeded to spout off ridiculous claims that apply to and condescend a large number of people.


B) High winrate players can certainly have losing 500 hour samples. This is hardly debatable. I personally know pretty much all the biggest winners at the biggest games in my area and we all have 500+ hour breakevens or losses. Maybe if game conditions were ALWAYS perfect (e.g. you never played in a mediocre game for 6 hours before the game got good) and you were ALWAYS playing your A game it could be possible, but once more I think your assertions are founded on flimsy and absurdly optimistic assumptions.

Some might people run a little good and fade 500+ hour breakevens for a while, or even their whole career if they're lucky enough. I have a 3500 hour period with no 500+ hour breakevens myself. But in the long run, it will happen to all of us.


"I can calculate the movement of stars, but not the madness of men"

Last edited by gangip; 08-04-2017 at 03:29 PM. Reason: I'm an idiot
gangip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 03:25 PM   #19470
Avaritia
Confirmed 2500 hour haver
 
Avaritia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,215
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

But whats ur graph tho
Avaritia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 03:26 PM   #19471
johnny_on_the_spot
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnny_on_the_spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: S-Mart
Posts: 10,928
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
Poker is different. You have to (you're supposed to) do studying away from the tables, there's also waitlists and games breaking that you have to deal with.
this is naive.

do you have a normal career?
do you have children?

there are all sorts of outside factors to everyones lives. to think poker players have to study outside playing somehow elevates them to more time allotted to work than a normal person is lol at best. teachers, as an example off the top of my head, never STFU about how they have to do a ton of work outside school.

adding children into the mix just makes parents realize how much free time they had before having children. after i had my 2nd kid, i now realize how much free time i had with 1; when i only had 1 it felt like i had no free time. silly me...

there are people who have all that ****, and still can go to the gym and eat healthy and whatever else you think is super difficult.


tl;dr: poker is a time suck just like any other job
johnny_on_the_spot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 03:28 PM   #19472
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,884
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by JB Clark View Post
Ok so you need 100,000 hands to be within 1 sigma (what Ive been told) so you can be 95% confident after 3300 hrs that your true win rate is represented by that sample size. So 500 hours is a hefty chunk. If you cant win after 500 hours you might not be a winning player.

The thing is, this is all misleading because if you have a high win rate you can assume you will ALWAYS show a profit after 500 hours. If you played an infinity of hands and chose any random sample of 500 consecutive hours, the chances that any of them are BE are not very high. Thats like 2- 3 months of not making money.
+-1 sigma gets you 67% confidence. 2 sigma gets you 95%, and 3 gets you like 99.5%ish (approximate numbers all).

Then cutting from 3300 hours to 500 is a only 1/6 of the sample. Not a "hefty chunk" at all. These things don't scale linearly either.

There are plenty of long term winners here that have had or shown 500 hour BE or losing stretches. The statistics also bear that out as a reasonably likely possibility.

Also, you your really think 500 hours is really 3 months? A 166 hour month is "standard"? That's full time play without any off table work. Not realistic for the majority of players.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OvertlySexual View Post
The word winning does a lot of heavy lifting here. It's different if your true skill is that of a 10BB/hr winner and different if you are a 3 BB/hr winner.

The sample size of your hours should give you a range within which your observed results will deviate from your true winning rate. The larger the sample size the narrower the range of observed results would deviate from your true win rate (which also moves along*).

So for example, after 100 hours, your results may be + or - 25BB from your true Win Rate. After 500 hours they may be + or - 10 BB from your true win rate. And so on.

I am pretty sure that a more statistically inclined poster can provide more accurate ranges than I.

* A lot of posters argue that your skill changes along with the skill of your opponents. But I don't think any change is usually as radical as the one you experience as when you first learn the game and it doesn't compare with the statistical noise you may experience. In other words, I would expect your true win rate to move a couple of points upwards or downwards.
This is my understanding as well, although my statistics is woefully inadequate as I don't remember much of it from undergrad anymore. Bip! should know.

The discussion of skill improvement is an interesting one. I'd agree that the initial period when you get into the game and learn the fundamentals, maybe read some books and learn some new concepts, whatever, has the biggest impact on most player's skill basis. Those tend to be big easy to observe improvements. The gradual refinement of our ability to read opponents and situations just based on experience is a lot more subtle and we end up just 'knowing' the right answer. It is there, but it's hard to notice.

If you're not putting in study time off the table to actively improve your game you're not going to improve as much as I think people are assume you will over time.

The skill of your opponents is an even more interesting question. In a small player pool they *do* adjust to you, while in a larger pool that's not really a concern. There's also a selection bias where really ****ty players (tend to) go broke and quit, so if there's not a steady stream of newbies looking for a game the *average* opponent will get better over time, before we factor in their experience personal improvement.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 03:41 PM   #19473
LordRiverRat
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,513
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny_on_the_spot View Post
adding children into the mix just makes parents realize how much free time they had before having children. after i had my 2nd kid, i now realize how much free time i had with 1; when i only had 1 it felt like i had no free time. silly me...

there are people who have all that ****, and still can go to the gym and eat healthy and whatever else you think is super difficult.


tl;dr: poker is a time suck just like any other job
What does having kids have to do with poker? That's a time sink regardless of whether you play poker or work a "real" job. I didn't say other jobs didn't require hours away from work. But poker definitely does so more than most jobs. Unless you're in a 9-5 that's really a 9-7 and you still have to worry about work out of the office, in which case you're probably in the wrong job/career but that's another debate. To make it more clear, why do you think 1500 hours is "standard" for full time poker? That's less than a 9-5.
LordRiverRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 03:49 PM   #19474
johnny_on_the_spot
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnny_on_the_spot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: S-Mart
Posts: 10,928
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
What does having kids have to do with poker? That's a time sink regardless of whether you play poker or work a "real" job. I didn't say other jobs didn't require hours away from work. But poker definitely does so more than most jobs. Unless you're in a 9-5 that's really a 9-7 and you still have to worry about work out of the office, in which case you're probably in the wrong job/career but that's another debate. To make it more clear, why do you think 1500 hours is "standard" for full time poker? That's less than a 9-5.


Are you generally obtuse or are you doing so now to perpetuate what you think is difficult?

Your 1st comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
I don't know how people manage to play 200+ hours a month. Especially if you cook and lift too that takes a lot of time. With that volume doesn't leave much room for non-poker activities.


My point was, and I'm pretty sure I was specific about this, many people work normal jobs for 200+ hours, have children, and can still cook meals and go to the gym. Considering your bio says your a student grinding in Vegas, I think it's safe to assume you have no children, so you wouldn't realize how easy your situation is compared to some people's.

You can keep commenting on this, but I'm done derailing the thread
johnny_on_the_spot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 04:30 PM   #19475
MIB211
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,011
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
Poker is different. You have to (you're supposed to) do studying away from the tables, there's also waitlists and games breaking that you have to deal with.
Yeah but everything has that kind of stuff. I'm a lawyer. I'm supposed to keep up on the latest developments, I'm supposed to take out clients, I'm supposed to be available on weekends and nights for emails or calls, etc. I also commute every day. I have two kids that I take to school every day and am supposed to spend quality time with. I have a wife I'm supposed to take out for a date every so often and connect with. I like to play poker and degen when I can.

Everyone has a lot of stuff to do, poker really isn't very different in that regard. The main difference in poker is that people can completely make their own hours, and in some sense that probably attracts people who want to "work" less than someone in a 9 to 5 kind of grind.
MIB211 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 10:53 PM.


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