Quote:
Originally Posted by SABR42
GG, what is your point?
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by SABR42
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.
I've went over this many times before a month or so ago in this thread.
GnotgoingtogooverthisagainG
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr
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.
I've also went over this argument many times before.
Gyou'regoingincircleswithit,imoG
Quote:
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
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by daniel9861
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by wj294
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrucci
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmeout
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?
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmeout
I play in a game that has 500 max BI
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