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 02-22-2018, 06:18 AM   #20876
Sol Reader
The Situation
 
Sol Reader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: See PG&C Thread. @IsoAcq
Posts: 9,380
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I've seen some pretty crazy 1/2-1/3 game, even in America. When the money about isn't as huge, there are people who just don't care as much and just put the money in. I also think when people are so loose, you end up having to value bet a lot thinner and just have a higher bet frequency in general.

In games where people have weak ranges, you should be over betting or barrelling a lot more. Again, people don't "never fold anything". If they really never fold anything then you should be value betting extremely thin to the point where you could get value cut fairly often. The reality is that sometimes people will have a weak hand, and they'll want to call, but there's often a size that if you make it big enough they will fold. That size is often about 1.8-2.2x the pot.

I'm not saying that's a thing you should be doing a lot, but if you think there's no way to adapt, then you're just not looking enough. If you think the game is such that overbet bluffing has no value (and by no value it merely means that a 1.8x pot doesn't have 2x the fold equity of a 90% pot bet, which, let's be honest, there are DEFINITELY spots where that's true, you're just not looking hard enough), then surely you should be able to find lots of spots where 1.8x potting for value should be your best line. You can't really have it both ways, from an exploitative standpoint, unless you think they're playing perfectly against that sizing.

Of course this is just a basic example, but if you think there's nothing you can do to expand your strategy at lower stakes just because people are bad, you're making excuses for yourself. Players being bad ADD more ways in which you can deviate from solid strategy, not take away. It's vs good players where you shouldn't be trying funky stuff.
Sol Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 09:23 AM   #20877
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Reader View Post
If you rarely ever lose 5-6 buyins in a row, you’re certainly not playing properly, and you’re winrate growth will stagnate very quickly. I’d rather play smaller, but in a style that wins more money and teaches valuable skill, than nit peddle at a higher stake for slightly higher winrate. If the games don’t change more hourly is good, but games don’t stay the same.

If you’re not ready to lose a sht ton of buyins, you’re not cut out to move up, and you’re not cut out for staying a pro for the long haul.
I guess Im not playing properly. My win rate would disagree, but I guess that doesnt matter.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 09:32 AM   #20878
paratrooper99
veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Paratrooper1999 on Twitch
Posts: 2,039
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewClintEastwood View Post
I agree for most 2/5 and above games but because of the excessively passive nature of 1/2+1/3 games I think losing 5+ buyins in a row at those games should absolutely be a very rare occurrence. People just don't play back enough or call with strong enough equity for variance to allow that.

Like in a 1/2 game people bluff or call with <20% equity all the time. In bigger games the bluff and calling while behind equity is much higher on average.
I have experienced this as well. In 1/2, my hourly is around $30 and my 2/5 is around $45. The biggest difference is the swings are much larger in 2/5. At, 1/2 I won over 80% of my sessions where in 2/5 it is only 65%.
paratrooper99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 10:16 AM   #20879
Avaritia
Confirmed 2500 hour haver
 
Avaritia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,215
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Sol, what is your biggest downswing in buy ins live and online (at one particular stake of NL)?

I agree with what you're saying, just curious what you consider normal from your own experience.

I consider 10 live and 20 online to be pretty normal, but if it contiues its dipping into tilt/leak territory.
Avaritia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 11:20 AM   #20880
Sol Reader
The Situation
 
Sol Reader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: See PG&C Thread. @IsoAcq
Posts: 9,380
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
My win rate would disagree.
I just means you're probably playing better than other people who play worse than you. It doesn't mean you're necessarily achieving your full potential. No real point arguing beyond this hypothesis, but the majority of players who are thinking deeper than you probably aren't staying at those stakes or posting their thoughts on a public forum, so there's a lot of confirmation biases here (and it works out both ways of course; I'm aware losing players are less likely to post up results also, so you're left with the middle bunch).

Quote:
I consider 10 live and 20 online to be pretty normal, but if it contiues its dipping into tilt/leak territory.
10-20 being the average big downswing (with some rare bigger ones) sounds reasonable. It depends on a LOT of factors, like how big the game plays, how big you or other players buyin.

Like, back to the point of a 5-10 buyin ds being huge: if you haven't played in a game where you're 500-1000bbs deep, then you're probably not maximizing (and this include games with 150bb max buyins; if you haven't tripled or quadrupled up in a session and kept playing because it's good, you've either not played enough to find a crazy table, or you haven't taken advantage of those spots, or you quit games too soon). And if you have 500-1000bbs on the table, all of those chips better in play, or you're, again, not playing optimally. If you're telling me you're like all the vegas nits who sit ridiculously deep, but only put the money in when you have the nuts, then you're CLEARLY not playing optimal, so what are you saying?

And therefore: if you a) play in games where you eventually get deep, and b) try to actually play correct deep stack poker that puts your money at risk in a +EV way, then we can deduce that a 5+ buying downswing can happen... in ONE HAND, much less over a few sessions.

To think that, if you're not tilting, you're unlikely to have a few big losing sessions strung together, is absolutely gamblers fallacy. If your chance of having a bad session of 3-5 buyins is 20%, then the chance of having that again next session, assuming same mental state and game conditions, will be another 20%, and I think we all know it's possible to lose 2 flips in a row, believe it or not. To think otherwise is gambler's fallacy.

Of course our mental game fluctuates, and for most people, to be sure your mental game not being impacted or having an impact on your downswing is delusional, but the role it plays can be relatively minimal. I've been in big downswings, I think we all have, where I was not playing well, and I knew it, but the biggest pots I've lost were all completely standard hands, and the hands I misplayed were the small to medium ones, and only made up as maybe 10-30% of my losses or winnings I missed out on.

My personal biggest downswing is hard to say since the game gets straddled a lot usually in these big downswings. I had a 60k GBP downswing last year November (after a 90k upswing) where I was playing some 10/25, but a lot of it was 5/5/10. Even if we say average blind was 20, that's a 3000bb downswing.

That said this is PLO, it's a lot easier to play NLHE without your stack at risk. I've had -3000bb downswings in NLHE a couple of times in the past also (probably happened in every stake I'd played large volume in, 1/2, 2/5 and 5/10), maybe twice a year or so, but I haven't played NLHE recently. I would guess nowadays NLHE is played more passively and that will be a lot rarer than 3 years ago, but a 10 buyin downswing would probably occur once every 200-400 hours if I had to guess.

I'm not going to pretend that during my big downswings I was not on tilt. I'm pretty much always on tilt to some degree, like, tilt isn't a binary, everyone is suboptimal, so obviously I'm not ever going to be perfectly zen, but of the times I was on a downswing, the chances that I was -EV in the game due to tilt has got to be below 10%.

Quote:
I have experienced this as well. In 1/2, my hourly is around $30 and my 2/5 is around $45. The biggest difference is the swings are much larger in 2/5. At, 1/2 I won over 80% of my sessions where in 2/5 it is only 65%.
Since 2017, I have 2 hour 45 minutes average sessions (due to jumping tables and stakes a lot) but on my tracker I only win 63% of my sessions (if you group the sessions together then the winrate would be higher since chopping up sessions on the same day increases frequency of losing sessions). Over entire sample, I average 5.6bb/hour winrate. Life time: I have 22.5bb/hour winrate at 1/2 and at 2/5 and 5/10, I average 14.6bb/hour.

I would hypothesise if you plot all breakeven or winning players' winning session % as y-axis, and winrate as x-axis, it's going to be some kind of lopsided upside down bellcurve.

THAT SAID, some games are just so soft that it's very tough to lose, and I certainly agree that I'm much more likely to have a losing session at a higher stakes game than a lower stakes game, but if you're moving up, and you're infatuated with not losing, you're seriously hampering your potential for growth.

I've played in 5 US cities, and around 20 poker rooms, and the 1/2, 2/5, and 5/10 is pretty much all fairly similar with few exceptions. I would say that for the most part, if you are averaging more than 70-80% winrate over 5 hour sessions, there's no way you're playing anywhere close to optimally. If you're playing optimally and still losing so infrequently, the game must be amazing, there's no way your winrate isn't some ridiculously huge number. The other alternative is if they literally just fold every hand very very slowly so you basically pick up the blinds 3 times an orbit and you play 2 orbits an hour or something.

Focus on what makes you the most money. Reducing downswings help you tilt less and IS a factor, but the majority of your work should be playing the highest EV poker you can.

Last edited by Sol Reader; 02-22-2018 at 11:30 AM.
Sol Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 11:28 AM   #20881
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

You're talking about deep 5/10 games, 10/25 games and then you throw in PLO. Thats completely different than what was being discussed and what I responded to when I inferred that its nonsense to think you arent playing properly if you rarely lose 5-6 buyins in a row.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 11:33 AM   #20882
Sol Reader
The Situation
 
Sol Reader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: See PG&C Thread. @IsoAcq
Posts: 9,380
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I included 1/2 NL stats, as well as 2/5 and 150bb buyin 5/10 in commerce.
Sol Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 11:42 AM   #20883
Sol Reader
The Situation
 
Sol Reader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: See PG&C Thread. @IsoAcq
Posts: 9,380
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Last year of 5/10 commerce NLHE.



1 10 buyin downswing, 1 6 buyin downswing, 1 9.5 buyin upswing, over 150 hour sample.

Lifetime-ish 1/2 NLHE.



2x near 30 buyin downswings, many smaller ones I'm not going to count, over 900 hours.
Sol Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 11:48 AM   #20884
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

How does this prove your point? Your 150 hour 5/10 sample has a win rate of $14/hr
There's certainly no proof of optimal play there. Just lots of variance.

Your lifetime 1/2 sample ($50/hr) is very impressive obviously, but my lifetime 1/2 sample is about 650 hours at $40/hr and I have zero large downswings. So how does that fact that you have two 30 buy in downswings mean your playing more optimally than I am?
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 12:09 PM   #20885
Sol Reader
The Situation
 
Sol Reader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: See PG&C Thread. @IsoAcq
Posts: 9,380
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Well you asked for capped sample, and I don't play a lot of capped NL, so that's the only 5/10 sample I have. It's to illustrate that the style that I deem to be best EV ends up with fairly large swings (earlier I said I expect a 10 buyin downswing every 200-400 hour sample or something, and this is to illustrate it). Whether you think my style of play means anything is up to you, but it happens to do okay over my career. This graph obviously has an atrocious winrate, but it is a small sample of almost no game selecting (I only play 5/10 NLHE when waiting for other games for the most part). I'd be surprised to see many big winning players not have similar frequency and volatility of swings even over a sample with a high winrate. In my experience, some good reg in the pool will usually mention that they're going through a 20+ buyin swings ever other week, which consolidates my feelings on it.

(Also this graph in pounds, so it's actually 20 USD/hour but whatever, obviously depending on how I crop it I can show a different winrate, but this is my lifetime Commerce sample, the only place I've played capped 5/10).

On the second graph: obviously when it comes down to it these results are ultimately pointless as I've tried to explain in the past, they can only be illustrative to back up a point.

That said if you think increasing your winrate by 25% is no big deal, then I feel like you've just illustrated my point about people not unlocking their potential by not taking risks. 40/hour winrate at 1/2 is very good, and, variance aside, I assume it comes from a mixture of good play and good games, but I can't imagine conditions of games where being less risk averse wouldn't take advantage of your superior play and soft pool even more to achieve an even higher winrate than you have right now.

All I can say is that, of the people I know who get high winrates (15+bb/hour) at low stakes all of them are very aggro, especially in big pots. Everyone else is at the low twenties at most.

Let's say the increase is 5bbs/hour (you might contest whether the difference is anything more than simply variance, but for this hypothetical let's assume there's some potential high ceiling with a more aggro playstyle). This increase in a 2/5 or 5/10 game where everyone's winrate is much lower, but each bb is worth more, could easily end up being worth more than 25%. (Obv more complicated than this, but you get the point).

Anyway there's not much to argue beyond this point, I don't know how you play, I don't know your games, and vice versa, so all we have are anecdotal evidence and personal experience, so, whatever. You do you, I guess.
Sol Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 12:24 PM   #20886
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Just to be clear, its obvious youre a great player and Im not knocking your style of play at all. Im just saying being a great player and having huge swings dont necessarily have to go hand in hand. Maybe I could increase my win rate a bit by playing slightly more aggro. Maybe you could decrease your variance a bit with the same win rate by playing slightly less aggro.

But trust me, Im pretty aggro a lot of the time.

PS...about two thirds of my 1/2 sample is played during the daytime when there is normally 3-4 $60 stacks. A couple $100+ stacks and maybe 2-3 $200+ stacks. Its definitely not deep and its pretty nitty during the daytime.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 12:42 PM   #20887
Sol Reader
The Situation
 
Sol Reader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: See PG&C Thread. @IsoAcq
Posts: 9,380
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Over my large sample there were definitely periods where looking back I'd wish I'd played less aggro, and some of my leak plugging does involve dialing down aggression, so yeah, I think that's fair to say. It goes both ways.

Ultimately it's anecdotal, we don't have quantifiable ways of displaiyng how aggro or not aggro we're being, so we can only vaguely discuss this. Again, I can see certain game conditions where even playing appropriately aggro you'd have a high winrate. I would still tend towards saying that for judging from the game conditions I've seen around the world, it's unlikely there are many CONSISTENT games, even at low stakes, where the very best strategies would leave you with less than 20% loss rate.

I don't know your situation, so I won't insist this applies to you, perhaps you are an anomaly. My main point is that most people obsess over not losing too much, and should focus more on playing well.

There are some games, I think you must agree, where playing well necessarily means embracing variance. How swingy your results are will often be a function of your opponents. When guys are just playing super loose and giving action against reraises and bets, it's simply suboptimal to not put in more money, preflop and postflop, with more marginal hands than usual, even if it means stacking off or putting a lot of money in pre with AQ, TT 99, or even worse hands. If you end up in a game like this, it's absolutely not a mistake to put yourself in a position where you lose a couple of buyins (like my example, what if you triple up, but then have to stay because a whale is still playing, then you can lose 3-4 buyins in one hand).

And between this extreme, and your extreme of a bunch of $60 stacks and some 100-200 stacks who play nitty, well there's a varying degree of expected variance. If you're creating needless variance, yeah, that's bad, but sometimes, more often than most tight regs think, it's part of gaining extra edge.
Sol Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 01:51 PM   #20888
sw_emigre
old hand
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Here but I should be on a yoga mat
Posts: 1,624
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Going back a bit, I'm not a pro but I thought poker BR and living expenses were supposed to be kept separate? This discussion has allowed the OP to conflate the two, which if my understanding is correct, that's insane. Only LRR and one other person mentioned this. So I'm just wondering if I have misunderstood the concept or if this conversation just passed over it.
sw_emigre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 01:54 PM   #20889
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,517
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

It's a somewhat controversial topic on whether there's any relevance of keeping them separate. It mostly comes down to each individuals situation.

For me a few years ago, I had basically no expenses so there was no point "separating" my total net. When I bought something my net went down, simple as that.

If you do have bills, then you should likely always keep a "reserve" of 6-12 months living expenses that you'll never have to dip into.

The general idea is that you're never playing with your rent money AFAIK
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 02:15 PM   #20890
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,366
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Reader View Post
Lifetime-ish 1/2 NLHE.

Sol, correct me if I'm wrong, but if based on this giraffe of winning $45K at 1/2 NL (although I don't understand if that includes the little downswing part after the star which looks to lessen this?), and an overall of a *very* impressive 22.5 bb/hr, does that mean you've played about ~1000 hours of 1/2 NL?

Any concern that it isn't a significant enough sample size to really know much? I mean, not in respect to whether you can beat the game handily (obviously) but rather in terms of the confidence level of exactly how much you can beat it by?

For instance, I'm coming up on 4000 hours of 1/3 NL, where it'll show that my first 2000 hour sample was approximately twice as good as my second 2000 hour sample size. So you can understand if I kinda have mixed feelings over exactly what can be concluded over "just" 1000 hour segments. And from the looks of your giraffe, it looks like you've even experienced the extremes of this in your small sample; from eyeballing things it looks like you were at $75/hr over your first 400 hours vs $25/hr over your last 600 hours (although, admittedly, if the worst you are running is "just" 12.5 bbs/hr then still very impressive).

Gstill,veryniceresultsG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 02:33 PM   #20891
browni3141
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: South Florida
Posts: 5,114
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
$2500/month expenses is way too high to be playing 1|2 for a living. Earlier you estimated that your win-rate was $12-$20/h. If we take the conservative side, you need to be playing ~208 hours per month just to cover the cost of living. To have a reasonable RoR you need to play even more than that. Even if you manage to play 250 hours per month, which very few people can do, your adjusted win-rate is only $2/h, and with a $13k roll your RoR is going to be too high. I'm also guessing you're not paying taxes since you didn't mention that in your expenses when it should be one of the biggest ones.

Adding on to this, I believe increasing your buy-in size or moving up to 2|5 would actually decrease your chance of ruin if it means you'd make more money. Your expenses are currently likely eating up way too much of your income and it's important for you to make more money. A low rate of bankroll growth is just as detrimental as high variance.

However, reducing your expenses dramatically and staying at 1|2 would be the best way, if possible. $2500/month is ridiculous. You should be able to get at least one meal per day comped and cook the rest at home, never paying to eat out except the tip. You should not be using Uber (wtf??). I know Vegas is a cheap place to rent so you hopefully aren't putting more than $800-ish into a place per month. You should only rarely be doing things for entertainment, if at all.

At your level of bankroll, growth is really the only important thing. Your life should be poker and you should not be doing much other than eating, sleeping and playing. Once you move up to 2|5 you can have more breathing room.
browni3141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 02:58 PM   #20892
sevencard2003
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: las vegas
Posts: 2,642
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
Adding on to this, I believe increasing your buy-in size or moving up to 2|5 would actually decrease your chance of ruin if it means you'd make more money. Your expenses are currently likely eating up way too much of your income and it's important for you to make more money. A low rate of bankroll growth is just as detrimental as high variance.

However, reducing your expenses dramatically and staying at 1|2 would be the best way, if possible. $2500/month is ridiculous. You should be able to get at least one meal per day comped and cook the rest at home, never paying to eat out except the tip. You should not be using Uber (wtf??). I know Vegas is a cheap place to rent so you hopefully aren't putting more than $800-ish into a place per month. You should only rarely be doing things for entertainment, if at all.

At your level of bankroll, growth is really the only important thing. Your life should be poker and you should not be doing much other than eating, sleeping and playing. Once you move up to 2|5 you can have more breathing room.
well if u read my blog, u would see im living out of a hotel and its not the same one i originally lived out of and when checkout happens again tomorrow ill just leave town. no more unsafe weeklies for close to $300 a week. thats too expensive but ill be damned if i rent an apt in a bad neighborhood for like 650-800 per month thats not safe. the only thing safe is a nice hi-rise and that too is like 1200 a month. and i damn sure aint renting a room in someones home i havent known for about 20 years, that too is unsafe. and ive no credit or proof of income and my bankroll isnt high enough to prepay 6 months.

using the bus after dark isnt safe either and i never was able to learn to drive due to aspergers, so i gave up about 20 yrs ago trying to learn how. so i spend about $500 or so per month with Uber. to save costs i need to be able to walk to a casino poker room.

$2500 might overestimate the costs, but including cell phone, internet laundry, etc not by too much. sometimes i want a safer place to live and then i spend about $1800 a month for a better hotel with a better kitchen and better wifi.

isnt the quality of life important too? this means housing where u are entirely alone and dont worry about someone breaking in, or dealing with riding the bus instead of Uber
sevencard2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 03:23 PM   #20893
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,517
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quality of life is important.

But I'd rather deal with it for a year then go broke and have to deal with it forever.
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2018, 04:36 PM   #20894
meale
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
meale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 9,840
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
I guess Im not playing properly. My win rate would disagree, but I guess that doesnt matter.
Also important to recognise the value of playing a low variance overall strat. I didn't play a HUGE live sample, but in my last 1k hours, biggest downswing was 9 buyins. But variance was seemingly not an issue in the slightest. I think I could attribute some of this to my play style. (obv lolsample is lol too)
meale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 07:35 AM   #20895
Sol Reader
The Situation
 
Sol Reader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: See PG&C Thread. @IsoAcq
Posts: 9,380
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
For instance, I'm coming up on 4000 hours of 1/3 NL, where it'll show that my first 2000 hour sample was approximately twice as good as my second 2000 hour sample size. So you can understand if I kinda have mixed feelings over exactly what can be concluded over "just" 1000 hour segments.
Yeah, that's why I'm saying, live results are rarely going to mean much. Even in this sample, my game was different in different parts, and obviously the game was softer early, and later on I was game selecting much less since I was playing in between bigger games, which, it turns out, really affects your results.

So like I said it's just an example. All I can say that this instance of a graph with a very high winrate involved high variance play and downswings. If it helps, I know 3-4 players with 1k+ maybe even 3k volume at 1/2 and 40-50+ hourlies, and they are all very aggro players with big downswings also. I don't know any 40+ hourlies that are tight and have few downswings.

Granted you can argue that it's probably players who run good and have better results who are more willing to play aggro, and maybe the players who play tighter actually are just as talented and maybe their winrates are actually very similar.

But, taking a step back, don't you think it's kind of ridiculous to be up 40-50k at 1/2 over 1k hours and still be playing 1/2? That's why you're never going to see a large sample with huge winrates at 1/2. Most people with that sort of results would have moved up. The only reason I kept playing 1/2 is because in many parts of my sample, 1/2 was the only game running a lot of times, but in america where 2/5+ is usually available, that's not the case. Otherwise I probably would have half as much volume as I even have now.

Also, agreed, being a pro at 1/2 in vegas seems really tough. Seems much easier if you're in an area with fewer pros and so on and where you can live near the casino cheaply. I don't separate br from living expenses, but doing so make sense. Ultimately any separation is in your head only, so separating br is really really not that different from requiring a higher bankroll before taking shot, but including expenses into your br.
Sol Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 07:59 AM   #20896
paratrooper99
veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Paratrooper1999 on Twitch
Posts: 2,039
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by sevencard2003 View Post
well if u read my blog, u would see im living out of a hotel and its not the same one i originally lived out of and when checkout happens again tomorrow ill just leave town. no more unsafe weeklies for close to $300 a week. thats too expensive but ill be damned if i rent an apt in a bad neighborhood for like 650-800 per month thats not safe. the only thing safe is a nice hi-rise and that too is like 1200 a month. and i damn sure aint renting a room in someones home i havent known for about 20 years, that too is unsafe. and ive no credit or proof of income and my bankroll isnt high enough to prepay 6 months.

using the bus after dark isnt safe either and i never was able to learn to drive due to aspergers, so i gave up about 20 yrs ago trying to learn how. so i spend about $500 or so per month with Uber. to save costs i need to be able to walk to a casino poker room.

$2500 might overestimate the costs, but including cell phone, internet laundry, etc not by too much. sometimes i want a safer place to live and then i spend about $1800 a month for a better hotel with a better kitchen and better wifi.

isnt the quality of life important too? this means housing where u are entirely alone and dont worry about someone breaking in, or dealing with riding the bus instead of Uber
Get a roommate. The trooper has tons of space. Seriously, there are tons of nice rooms to rent for single people for less than $500 a month. I have a wife and 3 kids and our budget (with a $900 mortgage) is $2500 a month.
paratrooper99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 08:02 AM   #20897
Petrucci
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,265
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

I mean, i totally understand where Sol is getting at-even if i (naturally) dont agree flat out with everything that he writes.

To me, what he is argueing due to not playing optimally and maxing out your EV if you never go on decent downswings- is similar to what Ferguson said once in a quite famous quote: "If youre not getting all your chips in the middle from time to time with the worst of it you are simply playing too tight".

Its about pushing your total edge, pushing your equity, pushing your fold equity in certain spots and so on. I can stand behind Sol that if you have the typical grinder focus of simply not having losing sessions, you are very likely not maxing out your EV potenial. You just arent, because you are very very likely passing on +EV spots that possible is high variance one way or another- simply to avoid risking to book a losing session.

Limon said in one of his podcasts about a similar topic that if all you focus on at the table is to make the correct play/move/exploitative adjustment in a certain situation: you will be unstoppable and people will not be able to handle you. Some opponents will view you as a maniac (because you barrell/semibluff alot against nits to max out fold equity), some will view you of capable of doing "anything", some will view you as a rock (because you always show up with the goods against non folding callingstations), some will view you as a steady grinder and so on-and at this point in my opinion you are closing in on your full potenial.
Petrucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 08:11 AM   #20898
sevencard2003
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: las vegas
Posts: 2,642
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by paratrooper99 View Post
Get a roommate. The trooper has tons of space. Seriously, there are tons of nice rooms to rent for single people for less than $500 a month. I have a wife and 3 kids and our budget (with a $900 mortgage) is $2500 a month.
this is a good way to get yourself killed if u dont know how to fight. especially if they know u have money and keep it all in your checking account, they will kill u for your atm card and pin. would anyone be willing to take a stranger into their house and rent to them dirt cheap, not worrying about their own safety unless they planned to be the villian themselves?

i only stay with people ive known at least 20 yrs. and no responsible person would do the same, unless they knew how to fight if attacked in someone else home. with the exception of very naive kids 18-30. no one gets roommates once they pass 40. women lose all respect for u when u dont have your own place.

i would never trust anyone i didnt know without first browsing their facebook profile and finding out who they voted for and how they feel about certain moral and social issues. if they a fraction of the inch to the left of me, (and im on the far right on about every social issue) id be scared to risk trusting them, for fear they would hate me for holding different views. some would feel theyre doing the world a service by killing a conservative.
sevencard2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 08:20 AM   #20899
Petrucci
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,265
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Like i know several grinders who are so damn risk averse that they are capping their own winrate.

Lets say you have a maniac sitting on $1000 in a 2-5 game. Maniac is on tilt and have announced he is blind allin pre, before cards are dealt. His chips is already in the middle across the betting line before cards are dealt, so its no angling possible. These risk averse grinders will literally fold hands like AJ or AQ off in this spot, because they think its too much to put in pre and too high variance against a blind hand. Even though youre obviously destroying maniacs range of any two cards with those hands. What many rock/grinders want if possible is _variance free money_, and this attitude is having an impact on their whole view on poker+ how they due to risk aversion pass on quite alot of decent spots.
Petrucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2018, 08:33 AM   #20900
sevencard2003
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: las vegas
Posts: 2,642
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrucci View Post
Like i know several grinders who are so damn risk averse that they are capping their own winrate.

Lets say you have a maniac sitting on $1000 in a 2-5 game. Maniac is on tilt and have announced he is blind allin pre, before cards are dealt. His chips is already in the middle across the betting line before cards are dealt, so its no angling possible. These risk averse grinders will literally fold hands like AJ or AQ off in this spot, because they think its too much to put in pre and too high variance against a blind hand. Even though youre obviously destroying maniacs range of any two cards with those hands. What many rock/grinders want if possible is _variance free money_, and this attitude is having an impact on their whole view on poker+ how they due to risk aversion pass on quite alot of decent spots.
no one any good at poker will fold this when they are last to act, but they might if there are people behind them.
sevencard2003 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 10:41 AM.


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