Make an effort to actually get better at post-flop play instead of only thinking about what kind of stack-off thresholds you need. Start thinking about ranges instead. It's difficult if you've never done it before, but you are certainly heading towards a path of breaking even. From almost every hand you post, it seems like you never think about what kind of range your action represents, what kind of range villains have, and what they perceive you to have.

For example, you expressed incredulity at being called down by Q8 on KQ8hh when you chose to "bluff" with A8hh, but you failed to think about ranges at all. This was a hand you overlimped in LP, yet somehow you are trying to tell the story that you have a huge hand on KQ8? And with villain holding Q8 thus limiting you to 1 combo of bottom set, you are somehow surprised that your bluff didn't work? This is what I'm talking about, just because you are "nitty" it doesn't mean your bluffs will work if you aren't repping anything.

Now, if you are okay with simply killing time playing poker to break even, then ignore this. I'm legitimately trying to help you but I suspect I am wasting my time because some people simply never learn.

Good catch, lol.

A relevant quote from a known pro with regards to playing solid pre-flop poker, and avoiding difficult spots (post) in $1/$2 and $2/$5 NL ...

"If you want to maximize your wins and play top-level poker, then learn to be uncomfortable."

Awesome post by SABR regarding capped winrates at the lowsteaks rake-trapped games (especially those with maximum BI limits which, in my experience, most are), as well as how we can run very good / very bad over very "long" (i.e. lol live) periods, imo.

Like SABR, I'm also fairly ready to call BS on anyone who claims a 10 bb/hr winrate *at these lowsteaks rake-trapped maximum BI games* (i.e. I'm not talking your higher BI 2/NL nosebleed steaks which at that point are beginning to outrun the rake trap). To date, I don't believe *anyone* has posted proof of this in this thread over anything that would be considered significant hours (even Squiddy's hours are mostly at 2/5 NL if I recall). To say that "those crushers move up before attaining significant hours" is a cop out, imo.

Gwon'tberespondingtostrategyrecommendationsinthist hread,toomuchofaderail,imoG

In fact, here's a little something I'm going to do. In 170 hours, I'm going to post my 4000 hour results at 1/3 NL (almost exclusively, save for about ~200 hours, played in a $300 maximum BI game). Don't want to spoil the surprise, but it'll be about 7 bb/hr.

So here's your incredibly simple proof-is-in-the-pudding task to shut me up and make me eat crow. *Simply post a better one* (again, anything up to and including 1/3 NL in a 100bb maximum BI game over 4000+ hours). It's *that easy*.

My guess is that Squiddy (if he can ever recover his lost stats and played enough capped 1/2 NL) might be the *only* one who could take on that challenge. Everyone else is just talking out their ass until they prove otherwise, imo.

ETA: Ha, after posting this I reread it and it came off a little "I'm the best player here" and that isn't what was intended (I don't think that for a second, FWIW). What I'm simply going to prove is that this magical 10+ bb/hr is thrown around *a lot* too casually here and without regards to steaks / maximum BIs (seriously, lol at the "I'd crush your game to the tune of 15 bb/hr" quotes above). Again, *simply prove me wrong*.

ETA#2: And this isn't the first time I've dealt with highly inflated estimates of what possible winrates could be without taking into regards steaks / maximum BIs. The same thing occurred in the past with Limit poker, where a 2 BB/hr winrate was tossed around as gospel. Problem was, no one took the time to consider that the rake at live 2/4 Limit is much more devastating than it is at live 10/20 Limit game (making the former virtually unbeatable). It's really the same case here. For a forum and thread based around facts, it's very disappointing that what seems to be an overwhelming conjecture has never been backed up with cold hard facts.

G*proveit*,imoG

Good post Sabr42 !

I've been playing 1/3 full time for 9 months now and have logged 1400 hours. The first 6 months I ran super hot and crushed the game achieving 11bb/hr as my highest and now my average is 5bb/hr.
I've been in a downswing for the last 3 months with some of the sickest coolers imaginable for big pots and I'm starting to doubt it's even a profitable game because of the rake. I mean I have no idea how long a downswing will last for or even what my true win rate is because my sample is too small. What I am seeing is that 10% rake capped at $15 is insanely high. Last year I probably paid $20,000 in rake whilst I profited a tidy $30,000. Over the last 3 months I've dropped $9000 and I'm not even certain I should continue. Is this game even beatable?

I'm seriously considering just moving to online or just wait until I have the bankroll for higher stakes 5/5+ (far less rake % paid)

+1

Since I started playing more recently I have been 3-betting and even 4-betting light a lot more often. The first few times I was super uncomfortable. As I do it more I get better at recognizing good times to do it and am better at playing post flop in these situations.

I also looked at any money I lost in these spots as investments towards my overall play.

Humans in general shy away from adversity but it is what makes us grow. We should embrace being uncomfortable.

You are beating it for 5bb/hr over 1400 hours. Sounds like it is beatable to me.

That is a very high rake though.

GG - ive played very very little 1/2 or 1/3. WJ94 may have the sample size at 1/2 and 1/3 his w/r in those games is obscene!

TexasDonkem - what is the buy in structure? What are stack sizes like in your game? Are there a lot of players with under 35 bb? Your rake is in fact quite high and 9k down swing in 1/3 is very substantial

You're losing like 5 to 6 bb an hour more than you should just from the rake if not more that's crazy!

With regards to rake, I'm curious if the rake in my game is considered high, average or low compared to your games in (mostly) the States. Mind you, I somehow feel that in the US you'd have to actually add your tips to the rake, since they're considered to be pretty much mandatory, right? Where I play, tipping is not mandatory (dealers' salaries are much higher, and all tips are put together and divided amongst all employees of all the casinos, so you can't actually tip the dealers of your choice anyway) and personally I never tip. This is not considered as being cheap where I'm from; lots of players don't tip, maybe even the majority.

Anyway, my stakes and corresponding rake percentages:
5/5 5% cap 25 (max BI 500bb, players mostly buy-in 100-200bb)
2/4 5% cap 20 (max BI 250bb, most initial buy-ins 75-150bb)
2/2 10% cap 10 (max BI 200bb, most initial buy-ins 75-150bb)

Any thoughts?

Yeah, WJ did post some very crushing winrates over the first 1000 hours (1500?) or so. While he still posts in strat threads I don't think he's updated his stats recently in the Winrates thread, would definitely be curious as to where he's at now (I'm guessing he has to be approaching 4000 hours as well?). Can't recall if his game had a larger than 100bb BI, and I'm pretty sure he also sat in 2/5 NL as well (if he thought the game was better).

GpostyourstatsWJ!,imoG


$15 maximum rake is very high. I'm not convinced my $300 max BI game could be beat at that rake with the sole exception of winning all pots preflop (where the pot is unraked, and is actually a strategy I'm moving towards).

And while I'm a super conservative player who has only gone on 2 downswings approaching 1000bbs, a 3000bb downswing does sound extremely large (although I'm guessing some of our more aggro threaders have done this although I'm guessing in a bigger BI game?).

Ggoodluck,imoG

sure gg; b/c no one has anything better to do than play 4,000 hours of low stakes poker for the sole purpose of proving you wrong lol. people try to help you get better on the forum; but no one actually cares that much if you continue to play your own way/grind out a small winrate.

you are throwing around the phrase "prove me wrong" like any of us can go out and play a 4,000 hour sample size in no time. believe it or not, that actually takes a lot of time to accomplish! plus even if anyone did you'd just say "well your game conditions must be different than mine" lol..

Prove it.

Everybody in this thread is talking about Sasquatch. And yet no one is showing any proof.

GthereisnoSasquatch;shouldbeprettyeasytoproveother wiseG

if I had a free 4,000 hours to spare maybe I would lol.

also when I say small winrate I am referencing your more recent results that you have been complaining about. 7bb/hr over 4k hours is solid.

4000 hours is 4 years of 1000 hours. I'd guess that there a lot of recs in my game that put in that much (although I only put in about half that much). Also (and I don't want to re-open this issue) but there are lots of players (even the winning ones) who stay at the lowest steaks for lots of reasons (no steak available to move up to, perfectly fine crushing their current opposition, it's just for fun anyways, etc.).

GWJ,endtheargumentandpostyourgiraffe,imo!G

not what SABR wrote tho

Um, he pretty much called BS on anyone claiming 10 bb/hr in 1/2 NL, no?

Sailboats, you must have a pretty good sample size at the small steaks by now, or did you move up before accumulating some solid hours?

Gclueless10bb/hrnoobG

prove it - lol. a giraffe poast is proof?

I have 3Avas lifetime spread over 1-2,1-3,2-5. If you don't think I have beaten and can beat full stack 1-2,1-3 games for 10bb that's cool. I'm not sure why you want to convince people that it is unattainable.

I'm not sure where my winrate (lossrate?) would cap if my Villains stopped telling me when they flop a set tho.

poast isn't a brag, these live games aren't that tough. (of course, for most of us, it takes a lot of work to reach that realization)

.

Ok, fair enough, I didn't catch the "significantly higher" part of SABR's post.; my bad.

But this isn't the point. Heck, it's not even the point if one random does eventually come in here and manage to post a 4000 hours @ 10 bb/hr in a 100bb max BI game (congrats if you do, seriously, hats off); SABR himself even says this is *significantly* difficult to achieve.

The point is that the 10 bb/hr winrate is tossed around in here with clear disregard to steaks / max BIs as if all levels are the same with regards to rake (they aren't, and I believe this is one of the general points SABR was making).

If you or someone else can do it, fine, congrats. But making it out like if you're a winning player that ain't in the top .1% then you're nothing when *not a single solitary person has posted proof of this in this thread* is pretty lol.

GSasquatcheseverywhere,apparently,somuchsothatnopr oofrequiredG

Sorry, I'm unclear on your overall point, I'm afraid. To summarize, I believe you have claimed here or elsewhere:

- you have realized a 7bb winrate over a significant sample
- you haven't read a strat book published in the last 8 (10?) years
- you don't subscribe to any training sites
- you play in a tougher than average LLSNL market with relatively high rake
- you claim that a 10bb winrate is sasquatch territory

my response is "huh?"

not trying to twist your words or rag on your skills, but what am i missing here?

Facesquid the game is 1/3 $300max buy in 10% with$15 cap and we're actually not allowed to tip. There is a royal flush jackpot average $25k if we flop it.

I will never be able to prove it because I will never play 4000 hours of 1/2, but theres not one single doubt in my mind that I could break 10BB/hr. My room has a 150BB max buy in at 1/2 but almost nobody buys in that deep. There are way more $60-$100 stacks than $250+ stacks.

I still demolished 10BBs. I only played 650 hours but I was at 18bb/hr total and 22BB/hr in peak times when stacks are a bit deeper and there's recs littered everywhere at the tables. You can tell yourself that I just ran hot but I know better.

Ive played around 4000 live hours. I know when Im running hot and when Im not.

I don't know how I can boil this down any simpler than this.

1) Everyone claims 10 bb/hr is doable in lowstakes heavily raked 100bb maximum BI games.

2) Not one single person in this thread has provided any substantial proof of that.

It's that simple.

Not saying it's not completely unnatainable. But the fact that not one single person has provided proof of it yet suggests that it is perhaps a lot more difficult to attain the everyone is making it out to be.

ETA: I guess your point is that even a moron like me (my words, I think they are somewhat accurate) can make 7 bb/hr then lots of people should be able to make more. And yet I still don't see any proof of that?

GSasquatch!G