Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash Discussion of no-limit hold’em live cash games of all stakes.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-06-2018, 09:45 AM   #21076
Petrucci
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,265
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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.

Last edited by Petrucci; 03-06-2018 at 09:52 AM.
Petrucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 09:57 AM   #21077
Petrucci
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,265
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
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.

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.
Petrucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 10:46 AM   #21078
Garick
Oberbiergenießer
 
Garick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Do you even math, bruh?
Posts: 24,603
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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."
Garick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 11:27 AM   #21079
DK Barrel
Concept of the Week author
 
DK Barrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: no gamble, no future
Posts: 6,798
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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.

DK Barrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 11:49 AM   #21080
fishmeout
veteran
 
fishmeout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: chi city
Posts: 3,221
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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.
fishmeout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 01:03 PM   #21081
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by SABR42 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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:
Originally Posted by ES2 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 01:41 PM   #21082
Petrucci
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,265
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

"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.

Last edited by Petrucci; 03-06-2018 at 01:48 PM.
Petrucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 02:04 PM   #21083
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 02:18 PM   #21084
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 04:16 PM   #21085
YGOchamp
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,517
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post

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



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?

Last edited by YGOchamp; 03-06-2018 at 04:26 PM.
YGOchamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 04:34 PM   #21086
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGOchamp View Post
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
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 04:40 PM   #21087
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

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.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 04:56 PM   #21088
SABR42
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SABR42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: printing money
Posts: 22,006
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

GG, you make a good point in that if the rake is high enough, the game could simply be unbeatable, or not beatable for a significant winrate. However, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

What's absurd is your claim that because no one else has posted a higher winrate over 4000 hours at $1/2 that's not possible or that you must simply be playing a style that maximizes your winrate. Do you honestly believe that you are playing every hand in the most profitable fashion? If your answer is yes, then you must believe you are the best player in the world, which would be lol. And if the hands you get can be played in more profitable ways, then logic dictates that a higher winrate than yours is possible. It doesn't take someone actually playing that many hours at those stakes to prove it.

You cannot have it both ways, and say that you aren't a great post-flop player, but your style somehow maximizes winrate. That would be claiming that you can't possibly do better, but clearly if you played better post-flop you would have a higher winrate. This is simple logic.
SABR42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 05:51 PM   #21089
sai1b0ats
veteran
 
sai1b0ats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,463
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
A lot of good ***** waving in the last couple of pages
I really don't see it that way. Our Villains are bad, so some of us can win quite a bit measured in bb/hr at the low stakes. I wouldn't want to compare my skills to higher stakes crushers.

It must be refreshing to learn that you the top crusher in your room (or just short). As GG explains elsewhere itt, 10bb is Sasquatch territory, so your 7.5bb winrate is just short of the max. Kinda depressing that even if you chose better times to play, table selected more aggressively, studied the game more away from the table, and only played when you're very awake and alert, your winrate would only go up a smidge. bummer.
sai1b0ats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:09 PM   #21090
Badreg2017
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,900
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Just tallied my results for my first 1200 hours of live 1/2 and 1/3 and my winrate is right around $21/hour. The bulk of the hours were at 1/2 (maybe 80%) but a decent amount of 1/3, I don’t have an exact breakdown.

A few caveats and notes:

1. I played live poker maybe twice a year for about 8 years before this but I never tracked those results so not really my first 1200 hours but close enough.

2. The first 600 hours were exclusively at 1/2 but a few hundred of those were at a game with a $400 cap. Most people bought in for $200 but I bought in for $300 and would often top up to $400.

3. While I was just starting to learn basic strategy for the first few hundred hours, I played almost exclusively on nights and weekends which helped my winrate. I definitely also ran hot for my first 200-300 hours. It’s a damn shame I didn’t know what I was doing then...so much missed value...so much.

4. This figure does not include my 100 or so hours at the 3/5 $200-300 cap game in Commerce which will lower my hourly slightly (a dollar or two). It was just a shove fest, about 16-20 of those hours I played with a guy who shoved 90-95% of the time preflop without looking at his cards. Sometimes he would just make it $50-100 pre without looking at his cards.

5. There’s a sprinkling of hours in there at 2/5 $500 cap where I probably made more than 20/hr but not by much and not very many hours. I would be surprised if it changed the results at all.
Badreg2017 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:14 PM   #21091
boredoo
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 282
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

GG, lurker here but have read your posts w/ respect for a long time. But I disagree with you here, and I think you're being stubborn.

My major issue with your argument is that it's based on the premise that no one ever shows up with receipts for a 10bb+ winrate over3000-4000 hours in 1/2-1/3.

But there's a reason for that: reverse survivorship bias.

Survivorship bias is when people get the wrong idea about what's possible because they only hear from the survivors.

In this case, anyone who could prove that 10+bb/hr is possible over a long term "dies" before it's possible because they move onto more lucrative opportunities.

In other words, most people who can make 10+bb/hr for 1000s of hours in 1/2 move up.

Some examples:

Say you grind 1-2 for 1000 hours at 10bb/hr. You now have 20k roll, which is good enough for 40 BIs at 500 cap 2/5NL, or 20 BIs in a deep 2/5 game with a $1000 cap. Anyone who can beat 1/2 at 10BB ($20/hr) can beat 2/5 at 4bb/hr and make the same money with way more upside. So they move up.

That leaves three groups of people who could possibly play 4000 hours at 1/2-1/3:

1. Losers.

2. People with smaller win rates who aren't losing but aren't making the $$$ necessary to confidently move up.

3. People who can't move up because there aren't bigger games. Or the bigger games don't run every day.


You are in category three, it sounds like. You're not alone -- I live in a city which runs 1/2 every day but 2/5 only once a week, on a weird day -- Wednesday. The consequence of this is there are more good players in the smaller game because they have no options, and that will also supress win rates a little. (Honestly this isn't really an issue as the best players just play long sessions of the bigger games when they run and travel to other places with bigger games when they don't).

You keep saying "sasquatch" -- but you're the one demanding the sasquatch: the crushing player who chooses to make less money when, with no effort, they can usually double their earnings by moving up after 6 months of grinding the bankroll to safely do so.
boredoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:15 PM   #21092
sai1b0ats
veteran
 
sai1b0ats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,463
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badreg2017 View Post
Just tallied my results for my first 1200 hours of live 1/2 and 1/3 and my winrate is right around $21/hour. The bulk of the hours were at 1/2 (maybe 80%) but a decent amount of 1/3, I don’t have an exact breakdown.

A few caveats and notes:

1. I played live poker maybe twice a year for about 8 years before this but I never tracked those results so not really my first 1200 hours but close enough.

2. The first 600 hours were exclusively at 1/2 but a few hundred of those were at a game with a $400 cap. Most people bought in for $200 but I bought in for $300 and would often top up to $400.

3. While I was just starting to learn basic strategy for the first few hundred hours, I played almost exclusively on nights and weekends which helped my winrate. I definitely also ran hot for my first 200-300 hours. It’s a damn shame I didn’t know what I was doing then...so much missed value...so much.

4. This figure does not include my 100 or so hours at the 3/5 $200-300 cap game in Commerce which will lower my hourly slightly (a dollar or two). It was just a shove fest, about 16-20 of those hours I played with a guy who shoved 90-95% of the time preflop without looking at his cards. Sometimes he would just make it $50-100 pre without looking at his cards.

5. There’s a sprinkling of hours in there at 2/5 $500 cap where I probably made more than 20/hr but not by much and not very many hours. I would be surprised if it changed the results at all.
sorry man, these rates are too close to Sasquatch territory to be believable. See the last few pages itt for the full explanation.
sai1b0ats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:20 PM   #21093
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by sai1b0ats View Post
Kinda depressing that even if you chose better times to play, table selected more aggressively, studied the game more away from the table, and only played when you're very awake and alert, your winrate would only go up a smidge. bummer.
And again we go in circles.

GI'veaddressedallofthesepointsbeforeG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:29 PM   #21094
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by boredoo View Post
GG, lurker here but have read your posts w/ respect for a long time. But I disagree with you here, and I think you're being stubborn.

My major issue with your argument is that it's based on the premise that no one ever shows up with receipts for a 10bb+ winrate over3000-4000 hours in 1/2-1/3.

But there's a reason for that: reverse survivorship bias.

Survivorship bias is when people get the wrong idea about what's possible because they only hear from the survivors.

In this case, anyone who could prove that 10+bb/hr is possible over a long term "dies" before it's possible because they move onto more lucrative opportunities.

In other words, most people who can make 10+bb/hr for 1000s of hours in 1/2 move up.

Some examples:

Say you grind 1-2 for 1000 hours at 10bb/hr. You now have 20k roll, which is good enough for 40 BIs at 500 cap 2/5NL, or 20 BIs in a deep 2/5 game with a $1000 cap. Anyone who can beat 1/2 at 10BB ($20/hr) can beat 2/5 at 4bb/hr and make the same money with way more upside. So they move up.

That leaves three groups of people who could possibly play 4000 hours at 1/2-1/3:

1. Losers.

2. People with smaller win rates who aren't losing but aren't making the $$$ necessary to confidently move up.

3. People who can't move up because there aren't bigger games. Or the bigger games don't run every day.


You are in category three, it sounds like. You're not alone -- I live in a city which runs 1/2 every day but 2/5 only once a week, on a weird day -- Wednesday. The consequence of this is there are more good players in the smaller game because they have no options, and that will also supress win rates a little. (Honestly this isn't really an issue as the best players just play long sessions of the bigger games when they run and travel to other places with bigger games when they don't).

You keep saying "sasquatch" -- but you're the one demanding the sasquatch: the crushing player who chooses to make less money when, with no effort, they can usually double their earnings by moving up after 6 months of grinding the bankroll to safely do so.
My guess is that your answer 3 applies to a lot more people that are given credit (I've addressed all this earlier in this thread but don't want to rehash that).

And of course, there's also a 4th answer: Why would anyone crushing these games to the tune of $30/hr (= 10bb/hr winrate at 1/3 NL) want to move up? They're making pretty decent coin simply doing what they are doing at fun stakes. Yes, there will be those will have the opportunity to move up and will take it as a challenge to themselves to do so; fair enough. But poker is notorious for attracting the ez-money-route people; I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be a bunch of people in the why-don't-I-simply-play-this-for-fun-and-crush-it category; but then none of those (not a single one) shows up to brag about their winrate (because no one likes to brag about their winrate)?

GcluelesswinratesnoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:33 PM   #21095
Badreg2017
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,900
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by sai1b0ats View Post
sorry man, these rates are too close to Sasquatch territory to be believable. See the last few pages itt for the full explanation.
Lol, I know you are being facetious because I have been following the discussion. My two cents on the topic:

1. A good player can definitely make 10bb/hour, but few do because as has already been pointed out, most people move up. I am a somewhat competent player, but by no means would I say that I’m good. Yet, I’m by far the best player at pretty much every 1/2 and 1/3 table I sit at. I would guess that if I play 40 hours in a week I’ll run into one player who is better than me. I would guess in an 8 hour session, I run into one, maybe two players whose game I respect.

2. It’s a silly discussion in a vacuum. A good player, playing in a good room, with a good structure, playing only on weekends, should be making substantially more than 10bb/hour. People are going to have different views on this topic because everyone has a different poker experience based on when and where they play.
Badreg2017 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:33 PM   #21096
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by sai1b0ats View Post
sorry man, these rates are too close to Sasquatch territory to be believable. See the last few pages itt for the full explanation.
If I've read things right, sounds like he has a solid ~300 hours under his belt at 1/2 100bb BI.

Gcongratsontheresultssofar,imoG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:35 PM   #21097
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by sai1b0ats View Post
I really don't see it that way. Our Villains are bad, so some of us can win quite a bit measured in bb/hr at the low stakes. I wouldn't want to compare my skills to higher stakes crushers.

It must be refreshing to learn that you the top crusher in your room (or just short). As GG explains elsewhere itt, 10bb is Sasquatch territory, so your 7.5bb winrate is just short of the max. Kinda depressing that even if you chose better times to play, table selected more aggressively, studied the game more away from the table, and only played when you're very awake and alert, your winrate would only go up a smidge. bummer.
Nothing wrong with a little **** waving every now and then

Since I am the #1 crusher in my city, I've decided to learn PLO to increase my WR. I'm only down $2000 this year so far playing it. The investment will pay off soon!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badreg2017 View Post
Just tallied my results for my first 1200 hours of live 1/2 and 1/3 and my winrate is right around $21/hour. The bulk of the hours were at 1/2 (maybe 80%) but a decent amount of 1/3, I don’t have an exact breakdown.

A few caveats and notes:

1. I played live poker maybe twice a year for about 8 years before this but I never tracked those results so not really my first 1200 hours but close enough.

2. The first 600 hours were exclusively at 1/2 but a few hundred of those were at a game with a $400 cap. Most people bought in for $200 but I bought in for $300 and would often top up to $400.

3. While I was just starting to learn basic strategy for the first few hundred hours, I played almost exclusively on nights and weekends which helped my winrate. I definitely also ran hot for my first 200-300 hours. It’s a damn shame I didn’t know what I was doing then...so much missed value...so much.

4. This figure does not include my 100 or so hours at the 3/5 $200-300 cap game in Commerce which will lower my hourly slightly (a dollar or two). It was just a shove fest, about 16-20 of those hours I played with a guy who shoved 90-95% of the time preflop without looking at his cards. Sometimes he would just make it $50-100 pre without looking at his cards.

5. There’s a sprinkling of hours in there at 2/5 $500 cap where I probably made more than 20/hr but not by much and not very many hours. I would be surprised if it changed the results at all.
Even if you pulled out the $1/3 and $2/5 (should be easy to filter, no?) I'd expect you to be at or above $18/hr if you're keeping a similar bb/hr. The higher cap you have for some of it will help your WR too.

Sounds like a good market/game ... where is this?
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 06:45 PM   #21098
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
My guess is that your answer 3 applies to a lot more people that are given credit (I've addressed all this earlier in this thread but don't want to rehash that).

And of course, there's also a 4th answer: Why would anyone crushing these games to the tune of $30/hr (= 10bb/hr winrate at 1/3 NL) want to move up? They're making pretty decent coin simply doing what they are doing at fun stakes. Yes, there will be those will have the opportunity to move up and will take it as a challenge to themselves to do so; fair enough. But poker is notorious for attracting the ez-money-route people; I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be a bunch of people in the why-don't-I-simply-play-this-for-fun-and-crush-it category; but then none of those (not a single one) shows up to brag about their winrate (because no one likes to brag about their winrate)?

GcluelesswinratesnoobG
There are definitely a decent number of people in category 4 as far as I can tell. Partially laziness, they'll get a $1/2 seat before the $2/5 seat opens and they stay instead of moving. Sometimes the $1/2 game has bigger donkeys than the $2/5 game that has attracted all of the "good" players that want to 'move up'. Sometimes a player moves up, gets smacked around a few times at the higher stakes, and stops bothering taking shots.

But that doesn't discount the fact that a lot of good players do seek out and play the larger game quickly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
If I've read things right, sounds like he has a solid ~300 hours under his belt at 1/2 100bb BI.

Gcongratsontheresultssofar,imoG
How? I don't see that at all. It's at least 600, and probably closer to 1000.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 07:02 PM   #21099
Badreg2017
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,900
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
Nothing wrong with a little **** waving every now and then

Since I am the #1 crusher in my city, I've decided to learn PLO to increase my WR. I'm only down $2000 this year so far playing it. The investment will pay off soon!



Even if you pulled out the $1/3 and $2/5 (should be easy to filter, no?) I'd expect you to be at or above $18/hr if you're keeping a similar bb/hr. The higher cap you have for some of it will help your WR too.

Sounds like a good market/game ... where is this?
I didn’t use an app, I usually just wrote down how long I played and how much I won and I didn’t always write down where I played. The 1/3 is in another city a few hours away though so I have some idea. I could probably figure it out precisely but I just don’t care enough.

So the 1/2 was mostly at Horshoe Hammond ($200 cap) near Chicago in Indiana, but a significant percentage was at the Rockford Charity game ($400 cap) which is usually in the northwest suburbs of Chicago.

Horshoe Hammond is an awesome game on weekends but weekdays it is very often a short stacked OMC game. It’s easily beatable for a decent rate on weekdays during the day but it’s hard to crush. RCG is a pretty good game but it’s hit or miss because it’s harder to game select and only runs until midnight. It’s also completely dead on weekends.

The 1/3 was all $300 cap and was mostly at Potowatomi in Milwaukee but I also played some 1/3 at be Bellagio, Aria, and 2/3 at the Bike. I always prefer to play 1/3 if I can but Potowatomi is a 2 hour drive.

@Gg and Angrist. I would say much closer to 600 than 300. I would guess 650ish plus or minus 150.

Last edited by Badreg2017; 03-06-2018 at 07:08 PM.
Badreg2017 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2018, 07:08 PM   #21100
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,367
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
How? I don't see that at all. It's at least 600, and probably closer to 1000.
It's possible I've read too much into caveat 2 (where a few hundred of the 600 hours were played at a higher BI game) and not estimated the correct number of overall hours.

Still, even if it 1000 hours, the overall point remains.

Gnicefirst1000hours,imoG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive