Yeah, I'm kinda of the same thinking (especially in a 100bb max BI game; if you've got an uncapped game, or maybe playing in some time warp game where absolutely everyone at the table is completely clueless, ok, maybe the sky is the limit). Basically, it's going to take someone posting a non-trivial sample size (and, no, 1000 hours ain't close) at ~17 bb/hr before I'll buy it's possible. This "crushers move up before then" is a bit of a cop out, imo.

There can easily be an outlier who plays loose aggro and runs well over a lol 1000 hour segment. It's simply much tougher to do over a much longer segment.

Gimo,proveotherwiseifyouthinkdifferentlyG

Plus it's not a guaranteed consistent set amount of money you earn. There's no security in your income. There's no benefits, retirement plan, insurance.

Some people don’t work just for the money.

February is in the books. My room raised the max buy in at 2/5 to $1000 on Feb 1st. Results for my first full month playing deeper than a standard 100BB buy in game:

113 hrs 9 mins
$15684
$135.03/hr

Plus 3 hours of 5/10
$1063

My best month ever at $16747

I wont blame you if you dont believe this because honestly I barely believe it myself and I was there.

Thats a nice and very believable heater.

very nice Mike Starr

nice month, Mike!

Nice.

Now that February is in the books, it's about time for an update. I'm pleased to report I went on quite the heater in January in 2/5. In 174 hours, I made 22.5k for a nice $130/hr. February was much less fruitful. I was up and down all month, culminating in a nice session tonight to prevent my first losing month. Final numbers came in at 1.5k over 215 hours for a nice $7/hr, but that does include a 3k loss over 20 hours taking 5/T shots.

Again, I think this illustrates how meaningless these small samples are. I think trying determine your true winrate is a bit of a fool's errand. Ignoring the fact that every lineup is different (meaning your theoretical win rate is diffent in every game), it just takes so many hours to get a large enough sample size to even come to a somewhat reliable estimate. Is 2000 hours enough? Probably not, and even it were, that's a year of grinding full time. Are you the player you were a year ago? I know I'm not.

So as a rec player that likes to keep stats, should I really focus on any of it if I am only going to get 50-80 hours in each month? Or just keep track of the bankroll to make sure it is moving in the right direction?

You should definitely keep track. Just understand that just because you hit $30/hr this month or $8/hr this month...those arent your true win rates.

I do disagree with most people that you need 1000s of hours to get a handle on your win rate though. I mean sure you will probably never know your exact win rate, but after playing long enough you can get a very good idea within reason what it is...give or take a bit. For example.....It doesnt matter if your win rate is $36 or $39/hr. Being high $30's is a good enough estimate.

Mike, my second 2000 hours (about 180 hours shy of the mark and currently rocking 4.27 bb/hr) will be at a winrate of less than half of my first 2000 hours (where I rocked 9.44 bb/hr), all at the same steaks.

I don't think people have any handle whatsoever on how there are so many things that greatly affect winrates over large sample sizes, none of which we'll ever produce at a lol livehands/lifetime rate.

Ggoodlucktousall,imoG

or we could do a little math, idk

I'm simply responding to Mike's statement that the difference between $36 vs $39 over ~1000 hours or whatever is not important, likely because he thinks that somehow proves your a "mid to high $30's winner". I'm saying it doesn't prove this *at all*, cuz you can *incredibly* easily put in your next 1000 hours as a $18 winner. Q: Am I a $28.33/hr winner? Or a $12.81/hr winner? I've got ~2000 hour samples of each, and yet they are *drastically* different results.

To date, I believe only one person has posted a 4000+ hour lowstakes giraffe in here (Angrist, although my memory really sucks, I apologize if I'm missing someone, plus I can't recall how many hours Squiddy posted). And if I recall from Angrists giraffe, as will also be shown in mine when I post it in 180 hours, it ain't no smooth ride 1000 hours at a time. This becomes even more true when those hours are spread out over many years (i.e. as the game changes) instead of packed into a short period (where the game doesn't change as drastically).

Your "math" is making quite a lot of assumptions (mostly regarding the conditions staying the same). Honestly, I wouldn't trust it as far as I can throw it.

GbutIthrowlikeagirl,sothereisthatG

Haven't you said 67 times in this thread that your game got significantly tougher? Isn't it possible (likely, even) that your results over both 2k periods are very reflective of your "true" winrate in your game over that time? 2k is plenty of hours

Conditions in my game have definitely toughened (not just in the play, but also the increase and rake plus the decrease in number of hands per hour due to dealers taking cash transactions).

And while I understand your point of how both of those winrates may be within acceptable tolerances for those different time periods (I'll let the math guys figure out the bestcase/worstcase scenarios of each), it is part of a grander point: it's highly unlikely anyone's game will remain the same over time.

GcluelesswinratesnoobG

Fair point, I agree with that. But you often make it sound like we are all just helplessly floating in this poker variance abyss, hopelessly trying to get a handle on our winrates. Whereas I'd argue that over 2k hours, your win rate is a reasonably accurate depiction of your edge over the field during that period, no matter how that field has changed within that time. I agree that it does not give a great indication of your future winrate tho

We can use math, experience, and expertise to reach some conclusions with reasonable confidence. Your hrs/year limits us on the math side (every x4 on time results in an x2 on confidence).

So in other words it's a pretty accurate indicator of how we've done in the past, but not of how we're going to do in the future

About the thing I'm reasonably confident in is that I'm a winner in my game. I don't really have any confidence whatsoever in stating anything more than that.

Gwinning,buthasnorealclueastohowmuchG

I'm not even convinced of this. Last year I posted my second worst results, and yet I truly feel (perhaps incorrectly?) that the whole year simply boiled down to running way below EV in like the ~dozen or so big pots I played.

Even last session out, the whole session (whether it was to end up a mediocre winning one versus a mediocre losing one) boiled down to a single decision. I eventually got the decision right (overriding my initial knee jerk decision which I thankfully eventually recognized as being wrong), and likely ran into the weaker part of her range, and faded the outs that she likely still had. It can be a pretty fine line.

GcluelessNLnoobG

My point wasn't really that every person with a certain IQ or higher can, should or would drop everything to grind live poker.

More that there should be some kind of equilibrium. If a true rate like 17bb/hr is obtainable by a non-world class player, (say, a very good 2/5 player), then it really shouldn't be all THAT hard to get to 12, or let's even say 10bbs an hour, as a full time grinder, IF you are smart and have the right temperament etc.

So then, what would be the win rate of a smart, studied, disciplined but unspectacular player who played only weekends? Seems like it should be well north of $30/hr, tax free.

There are many people out there who fit the bill. That is a nice chunk of change to many people. Poker is fun in small doses to a lot of people. Even reading a couple of books about it, or watching some videos can be pretty fun. It's not like saying you can make $30/hr repairing cell phones.

If they could pick up a little hobby that made them, say, $300-400 a week whenever they felt like hitting the casino on Fri or Sat, I just find it hard to believe that so few do it.

Perhaps I am overestimating the amount of time it would take to learn, or how rare it is to be psychologically suited to poker. I do know a couple of spergs who are much smarter than I am, but seem to struggle with going beyond level 1.

Also, as discussed by others earlier, the problem with a 2k hour sample size is it should very often not include an absolutely soul crushing downswing, and the impact it has on you.

GG, I think your drop in win rate can easily be explained by you being extremely nitty and everyone knowing you are extremely nitty and not paying you off like they did in the past.

Also, the tighter you play and less hands you play the longer it takes to get closer to a true win rate. That is another factor that leads to your results being so all over the place.

I havent experienced anything close to what you are talking about and Im around 3500 hours now.

GG. I like you and your 1000 hour thread helped me learn when i was first starting out to stop opening every single Ax hand. But i think MikeStarr brings up a really, really good point here.

Games probably have gotten tougher over tose periods.