Definitely possible....and def not for 5% of players. Probably 1%

When I say "nobody" I don't literally mean zero people, as I already stated "way less" indicating there's surely people who do but its not close to 5%. You naming a few people doesn't counter my non-literal claim.

fwiw 2/5 games are never as tough as you guys seem to think they are


@70k/year at 1/2 or 1/3 -- absolutely possible, but the majority of those who are able to are making 6 figures playing bigger games.

I've left the poker room because the avg stacks in the 1/2NL games were $150 & made up of players who don't put $25 in the pot w/o at least a big draw, so I don't see myself interested in playing 2/5NL with avg stacks of $200. I refuse to be a shill for the poker room.

If you lived 30 minutes from a casino & sat at the table 2000 hours in a year, that would be $35 per hour. So, less than 5% make 10BBs but 17.5BBs is absolutely possible.

I've seen a really good player lose a lot of money in one week, when the week started with flopped quad Qs on a KQQ board vs. AK, only to get coolered by running kings. Then, in the same week, flops top set over middle set, only to lose to runner, runner, flush. Those were two big hands I remember. I could see a BOT staying on its A game after that without taking some time off.

I believe this is more related to a structural change of the casino. If you have a bunch of screwballs (snowbirds that have never played a 1k game suddenly playing 1k) that game is gunna b off the hook for the initial phase of that change. But over time the difference will die down.

lol?

but the majority of those who are able to are making 6 figures playing bigger games.

I think way less than 5% of all players do. But if we're talking about winning players, I'd imagine around 5% of all winners make 10bb+ per hr.

@YGOchamp: I refuse to play 52 weeks a year. I take two 1 week vacations about 6 months apart. That leaves 50 weeks to play poker & golf. To make $100K a year playing 2/5NL I would have to avg $2000 a week. If I play [actually sit at the table] 40 hours a week, that's $50 per hour. For me, that would be 55 hrs a week in the casino.

I'm told that the 5/10NL games at the MGM at National Harbor MD are tough.

O rly?

Since I've started playing regularly and tracking again:

1) 7 Wins
2) 0 Losses
3) 1 200bb+ win
4) 0 losses
5) 0 500bb+ wins
6) 0 losses.



I love when I decide to hop back in the saddle and go on an instant heater. I actually resurrected my old PG&C thread and saw that 4 years ago I was beating 1/2NL for about $14/hr. Jumping back in i'm at $53/hr through 17 hours (average session lengthy 2.5 hours). The games seem about the same, but for some reason it feels like I'm seeing spots more clearly now than before. It's probably just the heater tho.

Maybe so. I guess there are 2 questions. What would a world class player, or a AAA or maybe AA player make at 1/3?

How much can a smart person who puts in some work and has the right disposition make at 1/3? i.e. the people who actually do play lower stakes.

When people start throwing out really high win rates, (and assuming it is not just variance), one reason I'm skeptical is it seems like a very big inefficiency.

The poker boom was over 10 years ago. Everybody knows about it. Many people, maybe even most people, think poker is fun and certainly better than a job you hate.

There are tons of very smart people out there. Many of them are unemployed, underemployed or could use some extra money.

Why is all this tax free cash just sitting on the table?

I do have 1 answer to my own question, which is that poker becomes boring after a while for most people and it is hard to play your a game when you are no longer interested. So the very best players either have amazingly disciplined minds, or some quirk whereby poker is always totally fascinating to them.

But I don't think that covers it.

I see your point and there may be some truth to it, but the snowbirds arent really the ones buying in deep. We have seen many many new faces that Ive never seen before since the buy in increased. I have to assume they are people who used to play other places that already have the higher buy in (Hard Rock mainly). They are mostly not snowbird age.

Now the snowbirds who buy in for a normal $300-$500 do get deep sometimes and its easier to get into a bigger pot with them if I am able to buy in deeper so that part of your statement has validity.

This would be my guess as well.

Although I am a little undecided. My room only has 5 tables, so that would mean if we had 10 tables and all 10 of them were full, that would be 100 players playing. Is just one of those guys crushing the game? Maybe, although I'd have to see his stats to be convinced.

G10bb/hrina100bbmaxBI10%rakedgameisdifficulttoachieve,im oG

Just to play a little Devil's Advocate with my 1/3 NL stats:

First 2000 hours: 9.44 bb/hr with a 70.2% session winrate.

Last 1823 hours: 4.27 bb/hr with a 59.8% session winrate.

But in the end, ya, I'll agree that session winrate is likely meaningless.

GcluelesssessionwinratenoobG

Wasn't able to play for about a few weeks due to life

1/2 in 2018
63 hours 45 minutes
+$677
$10.63/hr
5.31bb/hr
Biggest win +$500
Biggest loss -$300
Average $61/session
9/11 ~81%

There aren't a lot of top end players who wouldn't want to move up from 1/2. I understand players who stay at 2/5 or 5/10 depending on game availability, but unless you live in the UK where 1/2 is the main game in most places, and it's in pounds and deeper buyins, there's just no reason for a big winner to stay at those stakes.

The number of winning players whose EV is more than 10bb/hour at 1/2 would be a lot higher than those who've actually played 2k hours.

Yeah this is my point exactly. I had like 16bb/hr WR at 1/2 and only made it to 1k hours before I moved up. So I didn't move up till I had ~30k or so, which many would consider is more then needed before jumping to 2/5, thus others with crushing WR's might not even get to 1k hours before moving up.

Yeah that's the main point. By the time anyone who is good enough to win at that winrate at 1/2-1/3 plays 2000 hours, they're already well and truly playing 2/5.

Again, this can be a by product of game availability in players area. My area used to be a gold mine for higher stakes but now those games are few and far between, semi private and just not as good. 5/10 hardly runs in my local room anymore but 2/5 is very juicy for the most part and very plentiful

Oh for sure, but even then, if somebody was crushing that much, they'd still likely move to a better poker location if that was their main vocation.

So, i suppose the exception would be: somebody who's room does not spread bigger AND somebody who for whatever reason will not move despite knowing they're capping their winnings.

Can I get some love for this 2018 rungood? This is 11 days of 1/2 and 1/3. My friends/family don't play poker but I know you fine folks can appreciate the scale of this rungood!

Sick heat, long may it continue!

Since you're comparing your own stats, it's likely your session length and criteria for playing a session are similar between the two samples. So, if you are playing the same sorts of sessions for the same amount of time, of course if you win more of them your winrate will be higher.

Comparing win% between players is pointless because one player might play longer sessions on average (which assuming they are both winning players with similar winrates, a higher percentage of the longer sessions should be positive)

You might also have a type of player who likes to book a small win but continues playing while stuck skewing those numbers.

I think making this post jinxes it But I hope not

+1; this articulates what I was trying to say well

Maybe. I don't think anybody's true win rate at 1/3 is 17bb/hr, at least as a grinder at normal games.

Again, let's throw out scenarios like, it's an uncapped game and you only play on the weekends.

This is where we talk about massive downswings, and the void and the fact that some go years before running into them and a lucky few go their whole lives. Someone winning at that rate for 1k hours likely has both run good when winning and never had much of a losing stretch.

I'd also add that, at least in my experience and in many places, it's not like there is some huge gulf between the beatablility of 1/3 and 2/5. You do get more people who literally barely know how to play in 1/3, but it's not that common anymore and they buy in for $100. You will have more and better grinders in 2/5 but, at least in LV, you can often avoid them. You're also more likely to find a true whale in 2/5. That is, someone who genuinely DGAF about the money and has no problem blasting off one buy in after another. Saw one last night, in fact. Meanwhile, at 1/3 you'll find more ultra nits who buy in small. Also, rake and tips have much less impact on your rate. Maybe 2bb/hr or so?

Point being, if your true win rate at 1/3 is 17bbs, I'd expect your 2/5 rate to not be very far behind once you get locked in. There are other reasons too. Like, since you were likely a noob at 1/3 you, should continue to improve on your prodigious abilities.

FWIW, I just won about 10-11k in about 10 weeks of 1/2, playing maybe 25 hours a week. I don't really track my results much, so that's an estimate. I WANT to believe I could make 50k/yr working 25 hours a week. Part of me was saying, "you've finally done it! You're now a poker genius!" But I know otherwise.

And again, probably the most compelling reason to me is, nobody else seems to be doing it. There are a lot of people smarter than you or me out there who have PhDs and are adjunct profs making peanuts, or out of work. Lots of Walter White types. They've absorbed texts far more challenging than poker books and training videos. They know that poker exists. So why aren't they picking up their easy money? If non-world class players can make 17bbs/hr, surely many of these people could make 10-12 pretty easily.

Not rly buying this. A lot of smart people think it's a smart decision to stay away from gambling and poker, and theyre pretty much right. Their time would be better spent working on other areas of life.
Some smart people might realise it's profitable, but aren't money driven / don't like the predatory nature of poker, and get more joy out of being a productive member of society lol.