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 03-08-2018, 06:24 AM   #21176
Petrucci
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,266
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz View Post
Cool story Hansel. Has no relevance on the discussion at hand.

It did help me win $20 on my prop bet that you would respond making it about you.
Bang bang
Petrucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 10:26 AM   #21177
ZuneIt
veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Where I can find out how2play poker
Posts: 2,160
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
I've said nothing of the sort and even noted that his studying / hard work has undoubtedly paid off in spades.

What I'm saying in that a high relative raked / small BI game is extremely difficult to crush and to prove me otherwise (which no one has yet to do).

GcluelessNLnoobG
If the only poker game available in my area was 1/2NL with a $60-$200 buy-in, with a $7 rake & $1 BBJ and most players bought in for $100-$150, I would find another hobby.
ZuneIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 11:51 AM   #21178
niceguy22
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 820
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz View Post
Garick, think about how often those “big pots” exist. Now think about how often it would take to achieve an actual expected value in those pots.

The edges you are trading in small pots does not come anywhere close to contributing to those large win rates. If you’ve played anything over a few thousand hours of live poker and have the slightest sense of objectivity you should be able to cast your ego aside and say the majority of live poker is entirely influenced by variance.
I would disagree with this. A few thousand hours will very often accurately show the edge you had (or didn't have) over your opponents during that time.

Seems like you feel that overall you ran significantly below EV over a few thousand hours, and you would really like to believe that you're better than your winrate shows.
niceguy22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 12:21 PM   #21179
MikeStarr
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,978
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

All you have to do is read some of JohnnyBuz's strat advice and you will quickly see that he takes some insanely high variance and sometimes bad lines. Then he wonders why his variance is insanely high and he thinks thats the way it is for everyone which is just not true.
MikeStarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 01:43 PM   #21180
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by browni3141 View Post
You say most pots will be $50-$80 in this game. Let's say 50% of pots fall in this range and are evenly distributed, with 25% of pots higher and 25% of pots lower. The pot is rounded down for rake purposes.
.5*(1/3*1+1/3*2)+.25*2 = $1/h average rake increase. Let's say we win about our fair share of hands for a rough estimate of 1.5BB/h rake increase per individual for increasing the rake cap from $5/hand to $7/hand.
Anyhoo, no one else has attempted it and I didn't want to leave brown's attempt hanging, so here's my attempt, which will lead to my point.

If like most (say 80%) of pots go to maximum rake, then I initially guessed like 2 hands won per hour for a tight player, so each $1 increase affects the winrate by $1.60.

But then I began thinking about what happens when we stack someone. If they have more than us, only our effective stack is in play, but of course it's $1.60 shorter per hour that we've played (costing us that much when we stack them). If their stack is less than ours and brand new (thus not being affected by rake), there's no extra raping. But if their stack is less than ours and has been at the table a while, it's being raped over that time and now we lose money when we stack them. If mean, if it's been there 4 hours and they are a loose player winning 3 hands per hour then that's another $2.40/hr we're losing when we stack them. But then there stack is only getting raped if they're winning (and yet are shorter than us, which might be difficult); of course, they coulda lost most of their stack to a shorter stack (but then they didn't lose as much due to that shorter stack also being raped). Anyways, I really had the confuses attempting it this way and really had no idea how much to add on for rake raping in stacking situations.

So instead I simply said 30 hands per hour, 80% reaching max rake, our fair share of that at a 10 handed table is $2.40 / hr per $1 increase. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story either cuz as the $1 increase in rake goes up then the percentage of pots reaching the maximum rake goes down. But, all in all, I figured that at for each $1 increase in rake that costs us approximately $2.50 to our bottom line. I can be convinced otherwise.

So, what does that mean for our 10bb/hr crusher at 1/3 NL? Well, if his game moves from a $5 maximum rake to $7 maximum rake, that means he's lost $5/hr off his winrate, which now puts him at 8.3 bb/hr. The 2/5 NL crusher drops to 9 bb/hr. But what about the lowly 1/2 NL crusher? He drops to 7.5 bb/hr. Now of course this might not be totally accurate either as the 80%-of-pots-reach-maximum-rake was dealing with a 1/3 NL example, so likely the 1/2 NL pots won't reach them as often (although if you think the game plays much worse then it might be fairly close).

So, a mere $2 increase in rake (all other conditions staying exactly the same) is annoyance for the 2/5 NL crusher (costs him 10% of his winrate), but for the lowly 1/2 NL player it's devastating: it costs him 25% of his winrate.

Now what about those 7 bb/hr solid players? The 2/5 player loses 14% downgrading to 6 bb/hr. The 1/2 NL player? His winrate takes a 36% loss, and now he's a toiling at a pedestrain 4.5 bb/hr (read some books, amirite?).

The same sorta thing can be discussed in terms of what percentage of the average pot rake makes up. The smaller the game and the smaller the pot, the more damaging the rake is. The lines between crushing vs doing ok vs even beating the game become much much thinner.

This is the only point I'm attempting to state. Having a blanket claim that 10 bb/hr is achievable in "low steaks live pokr" is lazy and misleading (and, from everything I've seen produced in this thread, totally unsubstantiated). What's achievable at a 2/5 NL 200+ BI game isn't going to be close to what is going to be achievable at a 1/2 NL 100 BI game.

That's all I'm saying. Really have no idea why some think this is controversial.

GcluelesscontroversialnoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:03 PM   #21181
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick View Post
Several things. One, most rec players aren't here.

Two, very few recs put in the session lengths you do. My average is under 4 hours, for example.

Three, it doesn't take a crusher anywhere close to 4K hours to build a roll for a higher level, if available. I did it in 400 hours.

Four, lots of recs get bored and move on if they can't move up. (See anomaly comments above). I have less than 50 hours over the last year. Of those, less than 10 are $1/2, and I just played that because I was already there and it was all that was running. And I'm one of the few who still really like poker. $1/2 has no challenge to me anymore though, and the money available playing it is meaningless, so why bother?

Five, No one is going to grind the **** out of 1/2 "to prove you wrong." Why should they bother?

Six, by the time you get 4K hours in a game, both the game and (hopefully) your play have changed so much that the idea of a common "true winrate" throughout is likely meaningless.
Thankfully how many hours recs are getting every year doesn't have any bearing on the discussion. I actually think many are getting in a lot more than we think, but it's irrelevant.

I've already addressed the fact that many players don't have a "moving up" option. It's fine if your experiences differ, but it's not the same as mine.

Of course I don't expect anyone to grind 1/2 for 4000 hours to prove me wrong; wasn't my point. My point is that no one has proved it can be done (at least based on results here). So why should we take this as gospel? Because some good winning players produced good results over 600 hours 5 years ago before moving up? Heck, if that's the case, I guess just stamp my 2000 hour total of 9.44 bb/hr (or my 12.79 bb/hr over a 1014 hour sample within that) and call it a day?

Will agree that the idea of a "true winrate" is likely meaningless.

Gtheonusisonthosetoprovegodexists,notheotherwayaro und,imoG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:13 PM   #21182
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketzeroes View Post
For what it’s worth, when I started playing again last year, I took a super aggressive stance on BR management. I basically decided i’d start playing 1/2 and take a shot at 2/5 as soon as I won $1600 at 1/2. If I lost money at 2/5, I’d make sure I covered that plus some at 1/2 before moving back up.

Out of well over 1k hours I’ve logged, I have a total of only 47 hours logged at 1/2. I’ve probably won a bit over expectation, but my results are a little over +$1700 for a winrate of 18.1 BBs/hour. (I had actually moved up to 2/5 about 5-10 hours of play before this, but ran flat since - only play 1/2 rarely when I’m waiting for another game)... Yes I know this is a meaningless sample size - the point is that I moved up ASAP, so I will never have the amount of history GG is looking for.

After doing well at 2/5 for a while, I now mostly play 2/5/10 and 10/10 NLHE, and occasionally play 5/5 PLO (which is bigger than a $10 BB NLHE game), and have taken a couple bigger shots at 10/10 PLO and 10/25 NLHE.

I know that 1/2 games are generally much easier to exploit than 2/5 games, and 2/5 games are generally much easier than bigger games (mostly because of the other good players/pros at the table who will dig in considerably to your WR). Because of this, I have no doubt at all that well over 10BBs/hour is attainable at most 1/2 games... But you have to exploit exploitable spots.
Before I played NL, I played Limit. Lowly 2/4 Limit live poker. I actually have 1354 hours of it under my belt (lol, amirite?). If there is any collection of 9 individuals more exploitively brain dead anywhere else in the world than at a live 2/4 Limit table circa 2006, I don't know where it would be. But if that maximum rake in that game is $4, it's ~unbeatable.

Basically see above for (a) why rake kills even at good tables and (b) why your comment regarding 1/2 vs 2/5 games differing (regarding exploitation, etc.) isn't the case in markets that don't have different steaks.

GcluelessLimitnoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:14 PM   #21183
Angrist
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,883
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
Heck, if that's the case, I guess just stamp my 2000 hour total of 9.44 bb/hr (or my 12.79 bb/hr over a 1014 hour sample within that) and call it a day?
Doesn't this pretty much tell you that if you were just a little better, or your game sucked a little less, you could get 10bb/hr? You have the sample yourself right there if you squint a bit.
Angrist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:16 PM   #21184
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr View Post
All you have to do is read some of JohnnyBuz's strat advice and you will quickly see that he takes some insanely high variance and sometimes bad lines. Then he wonders why his variance is insanely high and he thinks thats the way it is for everyone which is just not true.
Similar to Johnny's comments to me regarding my vs the forums views on Sasquatch rates (which is a fair enough comment), I'll have to say that while we don't always agree on strat that I believe his assessment of big pot variance / etc. isn't considered enough, imo.

GcluelessbigpotnoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:19 PM   #21185
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angrist View Post
Doesn't this pretty much tell you that if you were just a little better, or your game sucked a little less, you could get 10bb/hr? You have the sample yourself right there if you squint a bit.
How hard do I have to squint at 4000 hours when I'll be at 7 bb/hr?

And maybe I simply ran really good over a lol ~2000 hours or so, especially in big pots? What's 2000 hours for an on-line guy, like, a few lunchtimes?

GsquintingashardasIcanG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:23 PM   #21186
Petrucci
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,266
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

yeah lets make everything relative-how convinient.Everybody is just as bad players, or just as good. Everybody have the same skillsets or are just equally good or bad- because we cant get an accurate long term 50 years ahead winrate.

Team delusional.com, and team indenial.com, nice freaking work.
Petrucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:39 PM   #21187
NeA
grinder
 
NeA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 601
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

You don't need 4000 hours to have proof that someone's crushing a game, do you even variance calculators?

I have won 16.5bb/hr in 18300 hands with a std dev bb/100 of 210 at 1/2 NLHE. There's a ~97.7% chance I have an EV bb/hr of at least 10. I'm not in the top ~2.3% of rungood and I'm a better player now than I was before so I'm pretty sure that makes me a 10bb/hr winner. I play deepstacked against a fairly small player pool in a somewhat decent game so that is advantageous for me but aiming at >10bb/hr at 1/2 should be a realistic goal for a lot of players.
NeA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 02:44 PM   #21188
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeA View Post
You don't need 4000 hours to have proof that someone's crushing a game, do you even variance calculators?

I have won 16.5bb/hr in 18300 hands with a std dev bb/100 of 210 at 1/2 NLHE. There's a ~97.7% chance I have an EV bb/hr of at least 10. I'm not in the top ~2.3% of rungood and I'm a better player now than I was before so I'm pretty sure that makes me a 10bb/hr winner. I play deepstacked against a fairly small player pool in a somewhat decent game so that is advantageous for me but aiming at >10bb/hr at 1/2 should be a realistic goal for a lot of players.
Please don't make me post my first 2000 hours winrate vs my last 2000 hours winrate again (it's too embarrassing).

Gcongratsonyourfirst610hoursatyourdeepstackgame,im oG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 03:15 PM   #21189
johnnyBuz
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
johnnyBuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Beast Coast
Posts: 7,092
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by niceguy22 View Post
I would disagree with this. A few thousand hours will very often accurately show the edge you had (or didn't have) over your opponents during that time.
You are not running the full gamut of hand distributions and all their permutations over a few thousand hours - not even close.

If you think about all the possible outcomes there are in a normal distribution, the majority of them are clustered around the middle. This is where you are realizing your edge - calling a river bet with 35% accuracy when you need to be good 30% of the time. Things like that that are highly repetitive and add or remove fractional amounts from your win rate.

Then you have the entire subset of hands that occur on the tails - scenarios that only come up every 250, 500, 1000, 2000+ hours. Think about how long it would take to experience all of those fluky scenarios *AND* achieve an EV of those outcomes. It would likely take a lifetime (if not more).

My guess is if everyone always ran at exactly EV there would be a lot less people and money in this game because there would be an enormous cluster of people around break even wondering what the hell they are doing wasting their time playing this game.

People here for some reason ignore the tails which is where the majority of your win rate comes from. There's a reason nobody is sitting around playing chess for money like they are poker - because there is no variance in chess. Variance is the entire foundation that poker is built on.
johnnyBuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 03:37 PM   #21190
niceguy22
adept
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 820
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz View Post
You are not running the full gamut of hand distributions and all their permutations over a few thousand hours - not even close.

If you think about all the possible outcomes there are in a normal distribution, the majority of them are clustered around the middle. This is where you are realizing your edge - calling a river bet with 35% accuracy when you need to be good 30% of the time. Things like that that are highly repetitive and add or remove fractional amounts from your win rate.

Then you have the entire subset of hands that occur on the tails - scenarios that only come up every 250, 500, 1000, 2000+ hours. Think about how long it would take to experience all of those fluky scenarios *AND* achieve an EV of those outcomes. It would likely take a lifetime (if not more).

My guess is if everyone always ran at exactly EV there would be a lot less people and money in this game because there would be an enormous cluster of people around break even wondering what the hell they are doing wasting their time playing this game.

People here for some reason ignore the tails which is where the majority of your win rate comes from. There's a reason nobody is sitting around playing chess for money like they are poker - because there is no variance in chess. Variance is the entire foundation that poker is built on.
I see what you're saying. But even losing 2 - 1000bb pots that you had 99% in each, over 3000 hrs, only turns a 10bb / hr winner into a 8.6bb/ hr winner. And that's pretty much a worst case scenario
niceguy22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 03:40 PM   #21191
iFreeSki420
journeyman
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 203
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

You are not counting a lot of important variables other than luck that is making your last 2K hours much worse than your first 2K hours. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge other variables shows your closed mind set to improving your winrate.
iFreeSki420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 03:50 PM   #21192
Ranma4703
veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: she / her
Posts: 3,008
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

GG, your casual use of the word rape is pretty upsetting. Maybe consider removing that from your lexicon.
Ranma4703 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 03:51 PM   #21193
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz View Post
Then you have the entire subset of hands that occur on the tails - scenarios that only come up every 250, 500, 1000, 2000+ hours. Think about how long it would take to experience all of those fluky scenarios *AND* achieve an EV of those outcomes. It would likely take a lifetime (if not more).
The example I ran into recently during my big downswing was having my 77 vs 55 lose on a J75 flop (getting in a BI+ on the flop). Basically I'd have to set over set someone ~49 other times and win them all in order to run at EV. Considering it would take multiple lifetimes to get that many set-over-set examples, I'm doomed to running -EV in this particular situation. Course, I've likely already guaranteed myself lifetime +EV in other situations which I've run good in, so some of these probably balance out.

ETA: And considering that set-over-set case that didn't work out in my favour cost me about 2 BI in a year where I won 17 BI, you quickly see what a massive affect these outlier events can have.

Gbutstill,validpoint,imoG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 03:52 PM   #21194
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranma4703 View Post
GG, your casual use of the word rape is pretty upsetting. Maybe consider removing that from your lexicon.
No offense intended; I'll try to remember that going forward.

GcluelessoffensivenoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 03:56 PM   #21195
soxfan43
journeyman
 
soxfan43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 219
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
Anyhoo, no one else has attempted it and I didn't want to leave brown's attempt hanging, so here's my attempt, which will lead to my point.

If like most (say 80%) of pots go to maximum rake, then I initially guessed like 2 hands won per hour for a tight player, so each $1 increase affects the winrate by $1.60.

But then I began thinking about what happens when we stack someone. If they have more than us, only our effective stack is in play, but of course it's $1.60 shorter per hour that we've played (costing us that much when we stack them). If their stack is less than ours and brand new (thus not being affected by rake), there's no extra raping. But if their stack is less than ours and has been at the table a while, it's being raped over that time and now we lose money when we stack them. If mean, if it's been there 4 hours and they are a loose player winning 3 hands per hour then that's another $2.40/hr we're losing when we stack them. But then there stack is only getting raped if they're winning (and yet are shorter than us, which might be difficult); of course, they coulda lost most of their stack to a shorter stack (but then they didn't lose as much due to that shorter stack also being raped). Anyways, I really had the confuses attempting it this way and really had no idea how much to add on for rake raping in stacking situations.

So instead I simply said 30 hands per hour, 80% reaching max rake, our fair share of that at a 10 handed table is $2.40 / hr per $1 increase. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story either cuz as the $1 increase in rake goes up then the percentage of pots reaching the maximum rake goes down. But, all in all, I figured that at for each $1 increase in rake that costs us approximately $2.50 to our bottom line. I can be convinced otherwise.

So, what does that mean for our 10bb/hr crusher at 1/3 NL? Well, if his game moves from a $5 maximum rake to $7 maximum rake, that means he's lost $5/hr off his winrate, which now puts him at 8.3 bb/hr. The 2/5 NL crusher drops to 9 bb/hr. But what about the lowly 1/2 NL crusher? He drops to 7.5 bb/hr. Now of course this might not be totally accurate either as the 80%-of-pots-reach-maximum-rake was dealing with a 1/3 NL example, so likely the 1/2 NL pots won't reach them as often (although if you think the game plays much worse then it might be fairly close).

So, a mere $2 increase in rake (all other conditions staying exactly the same) is annoyance for the 2/5 NL crusher (costs him 10% of his winrate), but for the lowly 1/2 NL player it's devastating: it costs him 25% of his winrate.

Now what about those 7 bb/hr solid players? The 2/5 player loses 14% downgrading to 6 bb/hr. The 1/2 NL player? His winrate takes a 36% loss, and now he's a toiling at a pedestrain 4.5 bb/hr (read some books, amirite?).

The same sorta thing can be discussed in terms of what percentage of the average pot rake makes up. The smaller the game and the smaller the pot, the more damaging the rake is. The lines between crushing vs doing ok vs even beating the game become much much thinner.

This is the only point I'm attempting to state. Having a blanket claim that 10 bb/hr is achievable in "low steaks live pokr" is lazy and misleading (and, from everything I've seen produced in this thread, totally unsubstantiated). What's achievable at a 2/5 NL 200+ BI game isn't going to be close to what is going to be achievable at a 1/2 NL 100 BI game.

That's all I'm saying. Really have no idea why some think this is controversial.

GcluelesscontroversialnoobG
Solid reasoning GG. I'm curious how you get bashed on this one.
soxfan43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 06:04 PM   #21196
pocketzeroes
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,333
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz View Post
You are not running the full gamut of hand distributions and all their permutations over a few thousand hours - not even close.

If you think about all the possible outcomes there are in a normal distribution, the majority of them are clustered around the middle. This is where you are realizing your edge - calling a river bet with 35% accuracy when you need to be good 30% of the time. Things like that that are highly repetitive and add or remove fractional amounts from your win rate.

Then you have the entire subset of hands that occur on the tails - scenarios that only come up every 250, 500, 1000, 2000+ hours. Think about how long it would take to experience all of those fluky scenarios *AND* achieve an EV of those outcomes. It would likely take a lifetime (if not more).

My guess is if everyone always ran at exactly EV there would be a lot less people and money in this game because there would be an enormous cluster of people around break even wondering what the hell they are doing wasting their time playing this game.

People here for some reason ignore the tails which is where the majority of your win rate comes from. There's a reason nobody is sitting around playing chess for money like they are poker - because there is no variance in chess. Variance is the entire foundation that poker is built on.
It sounds to me like what you're essentially saying is that sample variance/standard deviation (and therefore standard error and confidence intervals) are not accurate at all unless you have many thousands of hours of play logged...

Yes, there are some long tails in the profit (per hand) distribution. But IMO, all of this evens out in a way that's "close enough" before too long. Like that rare 300BB spot does not need to average out exactly if you've got a bunch of 100 BB spots in your history.

So using plain old statistics stuff is fine. If statistics tells us (by assuming normality in the distribution and looking at sample standard deviation) that we are 85% or 96% or whatever probability likely to be a 10BB winner over the past 1000 hours, then I think those numbers are about as good as it gets.

This does not account for changing game conditions, though. Just because we played as a 10BB/hour winner over the past 1000 hours does not mean that the same play will allow us to be a 10BB/hour winner over the next 1000 hours... It also does not account for our playing strength increasing or decreasing over time.
pocketzeroes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 06:26 PM   #21197
pocketzeroes
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,333
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
Anyhoo, no one else has attempted it and I didn't want to leave brown's attempt hanging, so here's my attempt, which will lead to my point.

If like most (say 80%) of pots go to maximum rake, then I initially guessed like 2 hands won per hour for a tight player, so each $1 increase affects the winrate by $1.60.

But then I began thinking about what happens when we stack someone. If they have more than us, only our effective stack is in play, but of course it's $1.60 shorter per hour that we've played (costing us that much when we stack them). If their stack is less than ours and brand new (thus not being affected by rake), there's no extra raping. But if their stack is less than ours and has been at the table a while, it's being raped over that time and now we lose money when we stack them. If mean, if it's been there 4 hours and they are a loose player winning 3 hands per hour then that's another $2.40/hr we're losing when we stack them. But then there stack is only getting raped if they're winning (and yet are shorter than us, which might be difficult); of course, they coulda lost most of their stack to a shorter stack (but then they didn't lose as much due to that shorter stack also being raped). Anyways, I really had the confuses attempting it this way and really had no idea how much to add on for rake raping in stacking situations.

So instead I simply said 30 hands per hour, 80% reaching max rake, our fair share of that at a 10 handed table is $2.40 / hr per $1 increase. Of course that doesn't tell the whole story either cuz as the $1 increase in rake goes up then the percentage of pots reaching the maximum rake goes down. But, all in all, I figured that at for each $1 increase in rake that costs us approximately $2.50 to our bottom line. I can be convinced otherwise.

So, what does that mean for our 10bb/hr crusher at 1/3 NL? Well, if his game moves from a $5 maximum rake to $7 maximum rake, that means he's lost $5/hr off his winrate, which now puts him at 8.3 bb/hr. The 2/5 NL crusher drops to 9 bb/hr. But what about the lowly 1/2 NL crusher? He drops to 7.5 bb/hr. Now of course this might not be totally accurate either as the 80%-of-pots-reach-maximum-rake was dealing with a 1/3 NL example, so likely the 1/2 NL pots won't reach them as often (although if you think the game plays much worse then it might be fairly close).

So, a mere $2 increase in rake (all other conditions staying exactly the same) is annoyance for the 2/5 NL crusher (costs him 10% of his winrate), but for the lowly 1/2 NL player it's devastating: it costs him 25% of his winrate.

Now what about those 7 bb/hr solid players? The 2/5 player loses 14% downgrading to 6 bb/hr. The 1/2 NL player? His winrate takes a 36% loss, and now he's a toiling at a pedestrain 4.5 bb/hr (read some books, amirite?).

The same sorta thing can be discussed in terms of what percentage of the average pot rake makes up. The smaller the game and the smaller the pot, the more damaging the rake is. The lines between crushing vs doing ok vs even beating the game become much much thinner.

This is the only point I'm attempting to state. Having a blanket claim that 10 bb/hr is achievable in "low steaks live pokr" is lazy and misleading (and, from everything I've seen produced in this thread, totally unsubstantiated). What's achievable at a 2/5 NL 200+ BI game isn't going to be close to what is going to be achievable at a 1/2 NL 100 BI game.

That's all I'm saying. Really have no idea why some think this is controversial.

GcluelesscontroversialnoobG
GG, this stuff about rake impacting villains before you play a hand with them is kinda irrelevant... Like, sure, rake can globally affect game conditions. It ultimately removes money from the poker economy at large. But your villains have the option to put more money down on the table. And what about when this high rake causes a villain to bust and leave the poker room and allows for a whale/donator to come join the table? Won't the people who donate the most stick around the longest when the rake is higher? Surely, that's a good thing.

No I don't actually think increasing rake will have benefits to your winrate. But my point is if your villains are staying short in the game, then yeah that's a meaningful variable, but it's separate from rake, even though the two things may be loosely related.

I think I read in a previous post that you're dropping up to $7 and most villains have between $100 and $150, many with less? Then yeah, that's just awful game conditions. I wouldn't play it... Despite that, my guess is that a good player probably *still* could win over 10BBs / hour - especially since you described the game as a passive limp-fest.
pocketzeroes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 06:39 PM   #21198
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketzeroes View Post
GG, this stuff about rake impacting villains before you play a hand with them is kinda irrelevant... Like, sure, rake can globally affect game conditions. It ultimately removes money from the poker economy at large. But your villains have the option to put more money down on the table. And what about when this high rake causes a villain to bust and leave the poker room and allows for a whale/donator to come join the table? Won't the people who donate the most stick around the longest when the rake is higher? Surely, that's a good thing.

No I don't actually think increasing rake will have benefits to your winrate. But my point is if your villains are staying short in the game, then yeah that's a meaningful variable, but it's separate from rake, even though the two things may be loosely related.

I think I read in a previous post that you're dropping up to $7 and most villains have between $100 and $150, many with less? Then yeah, that's just awful game conditions. I wouldn't play it... Despite that, my guess is that a good player probably *still* could win over 10BBs / hour - especially since you described the game as a passive limp-fest.
I don't believe rake has any factor whatsoever on who plays at the table if all rooms in the area have similar rakes / steaks. The lone exception might be people attempting to play professionally who eventually realize it's not worth the effort compared to other money-making options (I can think of a few people off the top of my head that may fit this bill assuming that's what their recent disappearance from the scene means).

My game is not a passive limp-fest. I did a 10 session 10 hour sample last year where 2/3 of pots are raised at non crazy/maniac tables and think that's likely a fairly accurate description of how many pots are limped vs raised.

GcluelessNLnoobG
gobbledygeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:03 PM   #21199
LordRiverRat
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,513
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

GG where do you play? I'll be sure to never play poker in your area.
LordRiverRat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2018, 07:11 PM   #21200
gobbledygeek
Poet Laureate of LLSNL
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 33,371
re: Winrates, bankrolls, and finances

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat View Post
GG where do you play? I'll be sure to never play poker in your area.
Do you think things will stay the same as they are in your area?

If so, why?

Gnothinginthepokerscenehaseverstayedthesame;expect ingittodosoisdelusional,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 10:51 AM.


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