FWIW, I had a 1013.5 hour stretch (which I've logged as a filter in Poker Journal as "Crazy Upwswing 1/3 NL") where I ran at 12.7 bb/hr. And yet 4000 hours will have me sitting at a lowly 7 bb/hr (wrap your around how poorly the results in the other ~3000 hours have to be in order to attain that).

Guntilyoudoit,orsomeoneprovesthey'vedoneit,youdon' tknowit,imoG

GG, what is your point?

The only people who are going to have 4000 hours at $1/2 or $1/3 are rec players who have no interest in moving up, and this group of players, by definition, is not going to be very good at poker.

No, not at all. I'm not even saying it wouldn't be difficult, it might very well be, but the fact that no one provided proof mainly suggests that nearly all good players capable of 10+bb winrates have long since moved up before they reached your conveniently chosen 4000 hour mark. And why wouldn't they? So why don't you just quit this crusade of yours? No, it's obviously not easy to attain a 10bb+ winrate, that's why the vast majority will never even come close, but for good players it is certainly doable. Those good players will never play 4000 hours of 1/2, though, because they will simply have much better/more profitable things to do/stakes to play.

This is not rocket science. You must know this yourself, right?

More than 1 person agrees with me that that is most likely because youve been nitting it up so long that nobody will pay you off anymore. At least not in big pots.

LOLLLLLLLL IS THIS FOR REAL. Honestly worst post I've ever seen from you.

HOW IS THAT A COP OUT??? It's entirely true. Yes, you are 100% in the minority of players that stay at a lower level and thus retain small profits. Most everybody else wants to branch out. I'm not sure how you can possibly think this is a cop out. Honestly absurd.




this lol.

I would happily take you up on a prop bet GG for sustaining 10bb/hr WR at 1/2, but the problem is that the opportunity cost is so high that it'd have to be 500k minimum and even then it'd take about 3 years to complete. (3 very miserable years). This "challenge" of yours is just as absurd (if not more absurd) then claiming good players moving up is a "cop out"

Plenty have similar amount of total hours but we move up prior to reaching such a large sample

While I do appreciate preaching about variance (something that becomes very real when reading DGAF's thread), youre more-so preaching (incorrectly) about how everybody who's "crushing" LLSNL is sun-running and their real WR is capped at a much smaller number

Here is the problem. And maybe a more fruitful direction.

There are a ton of spots that are profitable but for the rake and it's hard to even say where the cutoff is.

Simple example. It folds to you in LP w k9s. Lol you are so much better than everyone. Easy raise.

Unlike most, even crushers, you know to raise amounts that circumvent the rake a little. You make it 12. The bb calls and check folds. Easy money!

You risked about 24. You won 13. But the rake is at least 2. Tip is a buck. If there is a promo take out another. Now you risked 24 to win 9. The juice is over 1/3 of your winnings.

Is this really much of a profitable play? If not, that's a good source of winnings gone.

There are many other scenarios where I know I am beating the villain but it's hard to say if I am beating the rake. Floating and taking it away in a small or medium pot e.g.

You won't really notice this when running good or even average. You'll only notice how much you outplay Vs

Proof.

You keep using that word.

The other huge take away is that anybody who is beating the games for that amount is not going to share their WR's. They don't want people knowing what's possible. The only reason I don't care is because I don't play 1/2 anymore. If I was still playing 1/2 and crushing, best believe I wouldn't be in here saying "hey look im beating 1/2 for 17bb/hr"

Lol. 10 bb/hr is easily attainable if certain conditions line up. Some of those conditions are:

1) Location
- Attainable winrates in an underground game in Texas are going to be much higher
than attainable winrates in Vegas at the same stake.
2) Time of day
- Attainable winrates on a Monday at 10am are going to be quite lower than Friday at
10pm
3) Rake structure
4) Buyin structure
5) Game selection
- For instance, always looking for and getting transfers to the tables with the biggest
stack sizes or the ones with the most straddles.
6) Presence of other stakes
- A room that only has 1/2 running will be tougher than a room with 1/2, 2/5, and
5/10 running

Etc.

I have no doubt there are some players at low stakes who have long term true winrates of > 10bb/hr when/where these conditions are favorable.

finally, an actual good post.

100% agree. I beat 1/2 for 17bb/hr over 1k hours... does that mean I think I could ALWAYS beat it for that rate regardless of game conditions? hell no. I was a beast at game selecting, and would very quickly get to realize that equity when somebody doubled me up within 20 minutes of changing tables. I also almost never played in the morning. I still think I (and any solid 5/10 player) could at the very least maintain somewhere along a 10bb/hr WR even in marginal games/times.

Sorry. I'm pretty sure you just imagined those results. If GG beats a tough game for 7bb, it's pretty unlikely that anybody can beat any capped buy-in game for more than 10bb.

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that any 1/2 game currently being spread in this Country that is not raked higher than $5 + $2 is beatable for higher than 7BB/hr.

You just cant sit there and wait for premium hands and play 16/5. Learn how to play better post flop and play 23/17 ish and the game can be crushed like an aluminum can.

Yeah GG do you not see the contradiction in your logic? You’re beating what appears to be a tougher than average 1/3 game for 7bb/h but don’t believe that people, in softer markets, can beat games for >10bb/h? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

GG, i dont get it either.

You have pointed out and admitted countless times that you are not a great player, particulary postflop. Thats why youre obsessed with concepts such as SPR for example, as a convinient tool to guide you through pretty much every hand you play- as a training wheel.

This forum contains many crushers, that have years and years and years of live experience and many deepstack crushers as well that play a game i would guess that you most likely not even know anything about. Have you ever 3 bet or even 4 bet light 300 BB+ deep? Have you ever stacked off postflop with less than the nutz for 300 BB+? Have you ever faced a maniac playing deepstacked and put in your whole stack pre with less than a premium holding? Have you ever played any long session 500 BB+ deep? I am gonna go on a limb, and guess your answer to most of these example questions is gonna be no.

This forum also contains pros that have been playing fulltime for a living many years, or players that have poker as a very solid sidegig for themself. Or even "just" the steady solid fulltime 2-5 grinder that barely makes mistakes,plays good solid +EV poker day in and day out- and grinds out a very healthy living.

Why is it so damn hard impossible to believe that these players have better winrates than you do? Why is it so damn hard to belive that these players can beat the games with a 10BB hour+ winrate, when you beat your games for 7 BB hour as a self claimed noob or not good postflop player?

I mean, i dont mean to attack you really- but my patience (and likely alot of other posters) is starting to run out when it comes to your stubbornness and obsession with certain topics.

Sounds pretty accurate. I have only played in Las Vegas myself when it comes to the US casinos (pretty much all the casinos and rooms in Vegas though and a decent sample off season when the games is at its worst November/December), and 1/2 games ALWAYS have enough weak players with such big leaks that it its beatable for more than 7 BB hour. Everybody have told me that the games in Vegas is the hardest in the US, but i have always thought the 1-2 and 1-3 games there have been buttery soft from the first time i put my feet there.

Its hard to imagine any other 1-2 game in the states would be significantly harder to beat than nitty reggy OMC filled Vegas low stakes games.

Ok, some of these comments (not the ones directly above) are going beyond the respectful standards of this thread. Calm down a bit. It is perfectly fine to disagree with GG, but it's not fine to post things like "lol@u."

I'd be surprised if there's another person here with 4,000 hours at 1/2 with any winrate.

Here are my meager 1/2 records dating back to 2014. There are about 30 hours of breakeven 1/3 mixed in there so I didn't bother converting the whole thing to BBs.

Sure it's a small sample size but I believe your Saskatchewan rake trap game is plenty beatable.

GG,

It is pretty frustrating to see someone who has made such consistent contributions to the forum over so many years devolve into this type of unyielding mindset, especially while you simultaneously admit you are not a crusher. If you can make 7bb/hr and aren't that great (and let's be honest, a sick nit is never going to have the highest possible win-rate), why can't another player who is actually exploiting the leaks that so many low stakes live players share have a higher win-rate?

I only play ~8 hours a week, so it would take me a decade to reach the 4k hour mark, but I can assure you that I make more than 7, and also more than 10bb/hr. How do I know? I play in a game that has 500 max BI, only play on weekends, I table select like crazy, and I am actually playing pots and pushing thin edges to maximize my wins rather than sitting around and waiting for aces. I'm not going to talk about my current win-rate because I know it is probably artificially high and unsustainable, but there is also never a time where I've sat in a 1-3 game and thought I was the second or third best player at the table. From the posts you make, you are probably lucky to be the second or third best. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, but again, nobody who is as tight as you is going to crush unless they're on a crazy heater and their image and actual style aligned in a table's eyes.

My overall point is simply this:

People throw around 10 bb/hr as if it applies to all steaks / BIs. But it doesn't, mainly because the rake is *so* crippling at the lowest steaks (whereas higher steaks / bigger BIs start outrunning the rake to the point where it isn't as big a factor). Now at one time I'm assuming the lowest of steaks was filled with so many lol players that this made up for the crippling rake to the point where you could crush; but that isn't the case now.

This is also supposed to be the winrate thread. A place where people can come and post their actual winrates and speculate on what is possible in the game that they are playing. Simply throwing out "10 bb/hr" and treating the lowest steak / relatively heavily raked / limited BI game the same as higher steak / relatively low raked / higher BI game is lazy, inaccurate and misleading. Just as it was back in the day when the same laziness was done when throwing out a 2 BB/hr winrate for Limit (where really 2/4 Limit is virtually unbeatable).

Comparing different steaks / rakes / BI games to each other is comparing apples and turnips and what is possible in each is different, and it's very likely what is possible in the lowest form of the game is *much* less than what is thrown around here as gospel (hence "prove me otherwise").

GcluelesswinratenoobG


I've went over this many times before a month or so ago in this thread.

GnotgoingtogooverthisagainG


I've also went over this argument many times before.

Gyou'regoingincircleswithit,imoG


So much this, imo.

The similar example I come up with is this:

BB posts (so no other dead money in the pot).

Folded to you on the Button and you raise to $15, he calls.

You cbet $20 into $30, he calls.

You bet $40 on the turn, he folds.

EZ money.

He's put in $35 into the pot.

But wait.

Pot reached $70. So my room takes it's $7.

Room also takes $1 BBJ drop.

And because I'm not a jerk, I tip $1 (lie: I am a jerk, I'm never tipping on this pot).

So of the $35 we took off our customer, we actually got raked $9, or TWENTY SIX percent.

Are you *that* much better than your opponent?

At the very least, it is showing what a devastating affect rake at these small stakes have.

GcluelesstippingnoobG


These are all good points, although some of them I agree with more than others.

Like I said above, not all games are created equal, so applying a blanket lazy "10 bb/hr" response to all is inaccurate. Points 3 and 4 are basically are the main points I'm arguing in this regards.

GcluelessNLnoobG


These are similar to sailboats comment, and so far they are the best argument.

But two things:

1) Still no one has posted a 10 bb/hr winrate in a lowsteaks / heavily raked / low BI game. To me, this overrides everything else.

2) Not really sure I want to open up this can of worms, and this isn't really the place for it, but if no one provides proof of higher winrate in this type game, then it's possible that my tight-is-right-tighter-is-righter approach *may* be the best approach. I mean, this is part of things. I get flack for my method (I don't want to turn this thread into a strat discussion, so I won't address those issues here), and I hear a lotta talk about how "I would crush your game for 15 bb/hr if I bothered to play that many hours", but that's all it is, talk. Put up or shut up, imo. I putting up on my end; I find it odd that so many aren't doing the same on theirs. Again, I'm really not looking to turn this into a epeening contest, but there comes a point where I think we need to start seeing some proof of things, and if we don't, then I think it is perfectly valid to start questioning what is taken as gospel.

GcluelessgospelnoobG


I'm not talking about this game.

When I was sitting in the 1/3 NL game with bob_124 in New Orleans, he mentioned that due to the BI structure ($300 maximum for a new table but after that can match the largest stack at the table), the winrate was likely uncapped. I agree. I honestly have no clue how much could be won in that game, and if you have terrific deepstack skillz, the sky likely is the limit.

None of that applies to a smaller capped BI / heavily raked game. And it's also very likely the strategies in both games should be completely different.

GcluelessNLnoobG

"2) Not really sure I want to open up this can of worms, and this isn't really the place for it, but if no one provides proof of higher winrate in this type game, then it's possible that my tight-is-right-tighter-is-righter approach *may* be the best approach. I mean, this is part of things."


Aha, so this is the key behind the stubbornness and countless posts about this topic from your side: youre still in denial and still refuses to believe that other (better,more skilled) players would win more than you do in the same games with your ubertight, monsternit only putting more than 20 cent in the pot without the stones approach. You want to still live in a world where you are playing the most +EV style in your games, in other words you want to be right.

If people have stopped paying you off- the only correct approach is to open up your game slowly on different levels witch would eventually lead to you winning money one way or another. Either you will earn money when they fold to your bluffs ( light 3 bets or whatever), or you will earn money when/if they start paying you off again. If they continue to overfold to your bets, then you obviously will print money with a skyhigh fold percentage to your bluffs. In a nutshell, it really is that easy- its not rocket science. Really that is the essence of poker: adjust to what is happenning at the tables and your opponents. Your opponents have obviously stopped to pay you off, so its your job as a pokerplayer adjusting to that in a constructive way. Tightening up even more is just absurd and will only skyrocket the essence of the problem even more- dont you see that? Youre ubernit image will get even stronger, and people is gonna pay you off even less.

Even after basically this whole forum have told you that you are indeed capping your winrate with your established supernit image for years,uberpredictable playing style- and 10 percent of hands nutted faceup preflop hand selection- you still refuse to listen at all to everyone that is trying to get the points across to you. It doesent matter who it is, even Phil Ivey or Fedor Holz could chime in with opinions and you would still refuse to listen.

So yeah, at this point i guess its time to say i rest my case because youre taking stubbornness to a whole new level.

Gil, I'm not going to go down the strategy rabbithole here.

I've gone around in circles with this long enough.

Basically, if I don't see some solid proof backing up this taken-for-gospel hypothesis, being posted in what is a thread built on the foundation of proofs regarding winrates, then everything else is simply conjectured hot air, imo.

Gbacktoyourregularlyscheduledprogramming,imoG

A lot of good ***** waving in the last couple of pages (bringing the thread back to its roots I see) around an interesting WR discussion.

I agree with GG in principle that the "10bb/hr" WR gets tossed around a little bit too much. It seems to be people's go-to 'you should be winning this if you're halfway decent', when it's really more of a "if you're a solid player, with good game conditions, and you put in the effort you can hit this". I wouldn't call it an upper limit either.

Having played in quite a few rooms with different rake structures, it's pretty clear just how much of a hit it puts on your WR. That $7+1 is brutal, as is the $5+2 in Toledo ($4 out of a $20 pot!), or the $6+1 in Detroit. The $6 flat charity rooms with no stakes higher than $1/2 in the room are *significantly* better (for a lot of reasons actually). I don't have the data to really pull it out and compare, but the eye test watching the tray fill up tells you how bad it is.


GG, there is a lot to be said about player pool and your image though. I tend to play tighter than most too (not a bad default), and I can tell you that people *do* take notice and adjust to you. When I play in a new room I can play tight and get paid off, but if I'm in my local or home game with the same guys I see every week I won't (so I bluff the **** out of them instead). I'd expect that if we swapped rooms I'd beat/match your old WR without hassle for about 1000 hours. And you'd hit your old WR or higher in my game.

You've got what sounds like a bad rake structure, a bad player pool, and a static image that's all capping your rate. And you're still getting 7bb/hr. I think you could hit 10bb/hr over the next 1000 hours if you opened up (correctly).


I've got 4400 hours of $1/2 over quite a few years. Not going to post another figure as I don't feel like finding the links (done it before). Haven't moved games because I'm lazy and would rather play the $1/2 game 10 mins from my house than the $2/5 a hour away, and I keep tapping my roll to pay for life. Overall WR isn't all that great as I wasn't too good to start off, and the slog to finish my PhD killed both my will to live and my WR (don't play when you haven't slept right in a week), but over the last 1800 hours or so is about 7.5bb/hr without much active game selection or effort on my part. In a standard 100-150BB-BI rakefest. If I game selected a little harder and had some more time outside work to study/think about NLHE I don't doubt I'd have over 10bb/hr. But instead I've been playing/learning PLO almost exclusively.


TL;DR: 10bb/hr is possible with a bit of effort, but it's not a gospel default WR that's trivial for anyone with a pulse to achieve.

Youre literally just ignoring everything we've all said -- a bunch of people who've played just as much as you (if not more), and at bigger games.

This obsession with proof is honestly delusional. I've already explained why you're not going to get proof.
1) Those who have those WR's are not going to want to share that info publicy and encourage others to try and attain the same thing
2) Those who have those WR's and moved up are willing to share their info but apparently their sample size isn't good enough for you
3) Nobody is going to "prove you wrong", because our argument is that solid players beating BIGGER GAMES are the ones able to obtain these large WR's at 1/2. We arent taking a paycut to prove you wrong.

Why would anybody quit playing 5/10 or 10/20 (or even a deep 2/5) making $50-150hr so they could go crush 1/2 for $30/hr just to "stick it to you". Do you not understand why this is NEVER going to happen?

Agreed that this discussion is starting to become pointless. We've all said our piece. At this point it's either
1) GG is too stubborn to admit he's wrong/his strat might be wrong
2) GG doesn't want other's to think a high WR is possible in order to protect his own interests as he intends to keep LLSNL as his career for the foreseeable future

Either way, he's not going to budge and I don't think there's many other points that need to be discussed.'

fwiw I will concede that it's possible a 200 max BI game with $7 rake is entirely possible that WR's would be capped at lower rates, but I believe that type of structure is likely in the minority?

It would be interesting to get a consensus at the lowstakes games in most rooms. My guess (and my experience) is that the majority of the lowest staked games have low (<= 100bb) BI caps and terrible (and growing) rakes.

So my guess is that the majority of HHs posted in this forum (although I admittedly only respond to 1/3 NL HHs in this forum, so fair enough if you think I don't have a handle on typical 1/2 BI/rake conditions) are of the very conditions I'm talking about.

GcluelessconditionsnoobG

I can tell you that most of the rooms around Detroit have $6+1 or $5+2 rake for the $1/2 game. Mix of $200BI and $300BI that leans more toward the $200 side. I think Atlantic City was about $1 cheaper when I was there 3-4 years ago.

Can't remember any of the others off the top of my head (not that I really pay attention if I'm only there for a night).

I've *never* seen a *max* BI < 100bb in my travels.