Pro - not even close.

Winner - about 9 bb/hr

Negatory on opening the three cited hands from first position.

Depends on the game. I probably open these types of hands 12-15% from UTG.

I would almost rather do it with 67s TBH.

A bet sizing tell you have on one player doesn't prove your point.

Better players won't give away as much information with their sizing. It makes them tougher to play against and math comes into the equation a lot more often.

It's not even close.

There are some feel players playing the higher stakes, but they are usually rake losers in those games. Obviously, by virtue of not being too awful and having big rolls from doing well at lower stakes, they will usually stay in those stakes almost indefinitely (like they just break even, lose when games tough, win when a fish is in) so it might seem like there are feel players in higher games, but the higher you go, the less that is sustainable due to swings and higher expenses and of course, bigger and bigger loss rate.

During slow times, the biggest games can often be running around those feel players who beat smaller games.

KQo/AJo are absolutely atrocious hands when you get flatted IP by multiple villains. Especially if people are aware that you raised UTG and adjust accordingly. I would even open 65s or even 54s before even thinking about those garbage offsuit hands. At least SCs have plenty of flops where a cbet is justified because of draws or backdoor draws where when you have AJo and the flop comes Q74r you're just like "well dry queen high flop cbet to rep the queen".

Having SCs sometimes in your UTG open range can up your win rate from that position considerably in certain line ups. How's that for being on topic Garick?

Lol FK THE POLICE

But ye much appreciated , my thoughts exactly.

Seriously, next non bankroll winrate or finances post ITT is eating a temp ban, and possibly a thread exile.

Only reason I haven't done it yet is giving the benefit of the doubt that some folks are replying before the read my warning above.

Fish on a heater... This is the first year I have religiously kept track of every single session and I know (1) I'm running super hot and (2) I don't play enough hours to get a meaningful sample but was wondering...

I've seen on here where folks discuss their longest breakeven period but I'm curious the other side of the spectrum. I'm nearing 100 hours for the year and am curious for those that have a lot of hours, what is your hottest 100 hour stretch in terms of bbs/hour?

Edit: Also if in addition to your hottest 100 hour period if you could share your total hourly, that would help me get a feel for where I might be when I'm off my heater.

From memory my best 100 hour period was 40bb/hr (~$200/hr) at a 2/5 100bb cap game.

lol my hottest 100 hours has got to be insane. I won like 60k in 3 months at 2/5, where I was playing less than half my volume at 2/5 (prob <400 hours). I'm sure if I look for the hottest 100 hour stretch it'd be something like 30k+

(my lifetime winrate it something like 10bb/hour over all games/stakes, but I think it's kind of meaningless without specifying stake; my 2/5 lifetime is 15bb/hour)

You are being way to soft imo...multiple warnings should not be necessary.

I had 45bb/hr at 5/10 over about a 230hr stretch, but stacks were usually pretty deep.

I also had 66bb/hr at 25/50 but only over about 60 hrs. Ran hot vs the fish obv.

My hottest single session was in a $200 max buy in game I ran it up to $8900 in a 14hr session.

Man when am I gonna get some of this God mode run good?

So jealous.

Spyutastic's post gives me the sads. I'm at $85 ph at 2/3 over my past 100 hours (not my standard game, so it's taken 6 months) and thought I was crushing.

You are crushing. I was just lucky to be in deep stacked games with fish williing to stack off with TP for 500bbs.

100bb poker at 2/3 has a much lower ceiling no matter how hot you run.

My best 100 hour streak at 2/5 is $134/hr. I'm definitely more of a consistent guy with less big wins and big losses though.

Probably the best type of graph. The ruler graph is the dream.

Eh who cares as long as the best fit line is nice and steep?

In all seriousness, most poker players would probably be more than happy sacrificing some EV for a less jagged graph.

Truth.

well...they would in the downward parts of the graph!

How much EV? Seems like somebody could make a lot of money selling poker players "variance insurance." I.e. if you win X BB/hr over a sufficiently large sample to convince me you're winning at X BB/hr, then I pay you .85X BB/hr and you pay me back X BB/hr within...IDK 18 months? You get a nice steady wage and I get 15% profits for absorbing the variance.

If only I had a few million in capital...

Personally I think wanting a ruler graph is kind of silly. First if you actually won like that every session would be the exact same. Second it's live poker. In the low stakes at least winrates are relatively high and risk of ruin relatively low. It's not like mass tabling online for 1 or 2 BB/100 where risk of ruin is serious without a huge bankroll.

Maybe I'll feel different if/when I start playing 5/T+.

Probably true.

Even though I'm winning a lot more now then I was 3 years ago, back then my graph was just a straight line. Now I have massive swings and no matter how much I'm up at the end of the week/month I feel stressed af on a day to day basis.

Hell, taking some slightly lower EV lines for the sake of reducing variance may even be +EV in the sense that I won't have to take as much time off.

Bingo! This is exactly how I feel. I rarely take a lower EV line on purpose but if I think a big decision is close to neutral EV and I cant narrow villains range enough to be sure, I just lay it down and move on where other good players may say Damn the variance and go balls to the wall.

For me the lower stress at the end of the day has value. I also think I play better in general when things are running smoothly so a slightly lower variance line from time to time which might sacrifice some EV in that hand could give me higher EV overall from helping me play better. If that makes any sense.

That's actually a very interesting idea. I definitely love it when my wins come steady and regularly. However, when I think about it more, I think I would like poker a lot less if I was actually getting paid $X/hr every hour. It would seem like an actual job and it could even make me play worse. I think I could slip into a robotic mode since I know Im making $X/hr every hour and might be playing my B game most of the time.

Wow some of these 100 hour samples are crazy and definitely serve as a humble pie for me as I realize my results are very pedestrian, especially for 1/2.

As to the "variance insurance" idea, Dan Harrington discusses the idea (a bit metaphorically) that LAGs essentially are sellers of this insurance to tighter players who are in effect buying this insurance from them.