I'm not convinced that stack depth is more important than blind levels. Regardless of blind levels I'd expect the normal table to have plenty 100 BB stacks. Most pots are not deep stack collisions. While these deep stack collisions can impact your WR substantially. I've had several sessions where I just won lots of small pots and posted a better WR than when I got it all in once or twice and ran well. Also, as stacks get deeper it's harder to get it all in over 3 streets unless it's 3 bet pre or there is significant action post. An average PFR size of $10 makes pots in my 1/2 games much smaller on average than an average PFR size of $25 at 2/5. Maybe one of the math guys can model how frequently you have to collide deep stacks to overcome the difference in blind and pot sizes. IMO a 1/2 game where everyone has $1k behind will play smaller and yield a smaller WR than a 2/5 game capped at $500 (100 BB). But some of that may depend on play style as well.

On the other hand I have been at 1/2 games where the average open was $20 and there were blind bets and straddles. In that case obviously things are different. I say all of this to say there are many factors that effect win rate and all things other things being equal comparing blind structure to stack depth is not a slam dunk.

Agreed. $70 is nowhere near the max. In 200bb games, $100+ winrates are very obtainable.

BTW, why did you choose to stop playing? Does your brown haired sidekick still play? Do you plan on returning to the game at any point?

I guess I'm confused. You mentioned in your first statement that squid was wrong because games are harder when he reference his/his friends over 50$ wr but then agreed with him in the second saying that way more than 70$ is possible. I must be reading something wrong here.

I guess I was responding to his statement "why do people think 70 is the cap?" He sounded pretty surprised that people think 70 is the cap.

I didn't mean he was wrong. I just meant that the games are tougher now than what he probably remembers so it makes sense that people think 70 (or lower) is the cap. There are surely many fewer people who could hit 70 now than when he was playing.

Very few people could hit 70 now, and unless they play in a room with some good action and play the right days and times, its not going to happen for anyone except the absolute best players.

Let's be honest here. Nobody has any idea what they are talking about when they speculate about the win-rate cap.

1. Game conditions across the country vary drastically. It's nonsense to claim an overall cap for the entire stake when we consider games with long term sustainable whale regs dumping hundreds of thousands a year and games that are nitfests in the same pool. It would be much more reasonable to claim a win-rate cap for a specific game, but it's still not likely possible to do so with any confidence because...

2. Nobody has enough of a sample size to even know their win-rate to the degree of precision we're arguing about, especially considering game conditions change over the span of time an accurate win-rate could be measured. How do we speculate on the cap when we can't even calculate our own win-rates with any precision?

3. Poker is still a relatively young game. Humans as a race have improved our knowledge of the game by leaps and bounds in the past decade or two. I'd speculate that even the best player in the world is likely not close to the level of play humans are capable of.

This isn't to say I don't think it's possible to calculate a win-rate cap. I think a smart computer programmer could do a pretty good job provided a decent sample of live hands from the player pool we want to measure. I don't think a human poker player is capable of reasonably making a claim with any level of confidence, though.

It has been about a year since I have last played. I still stay semi current in terms of discussing hands/reading up on thought processes etc. I am pretty much retired at this point. I have been very lucky career wise...and got wildly lucky last year working on a gamboolin project that set me up. So if I do not need to make money I have zero intentions of stepping inside of a casino again.

Gamboolin has been good to me in terms of how I have been able to structure my life. I am simply over it. I stopped playing poker when I was within spitting distance of my high water mark. What closed the deal for me was SPC broke her leg quite badly. I took time off to care for her. Suddenly it had been 4 months since I played. Some old gamboolin buds asked if I would be interested in workin on an interesting project...it panned out nicely.

Who said anything about any level of precision?

We can easily speculate on the cap. Its more than I make. Its more than you make.

You always seemed to approach the game the right way and took the proper mindset to the tables. Glad to see that it paid off for you. Very well deserved.

I somehow missed this. THe sample this is drawn from is Apr 15 2011 (black friday) till Apri of last year. It is a very large sample. The majority of it is from the Venetian which is a 200bb game. Second most volume is from Florida games which are also 200bb.

A pretty decent slug of these hours are during very non prime hours (mid week day time stuff). I was spending about 2/3 of my time in Vegas and 1/3 of my time in Utah.

thank you for the kind words I really appreciate it. Your results are most impressive. Keep kicking ass my man!

Running really bad to start my live poker journey...I feel like I'm playing well, I'm definitely never tilting, I'm rolled for the games I play, but it's hard to gain any traction when you just get coolered like twice a session... And I'm talking actual coolers like I've been overset 3x in the last 2 sessions on dry boards, jammed river with AA vs a guy who never played poker before tonight only to find out he was calling down with third pair the whole way and spiked a 3 on the river to make 2 pair with 83s... Guy thought he lost and was about to push his chips over... Hit nut straight on river later only to jam into his rivered backdoor flush 5 high no pair no draw flop float....

Sigh I wanna post a sweet results graph too but the run bad is too much. Lol live poker

Curious. How did your Venetian winrate compare to your Florida winrate?

Agree with squid.

There is no cap, just probabilities. I've seen uncapped 5/5 games where I'm pretty sure absurd winrates (>100/hr) are possible, maybe even likely for top players. Lately I found a table stakes 1/2 game so laughably soft I think it is beatable for 60+, maybe more. The best players in this game would be spots where I usually play.

Also, the very best players win from everybody, not just fish. I think people just don't like the idea there may be some (very rare) players who are so much better than they are that traditional beliefs about winrate caps go out the window.

you're the same person that was claiming "multiple people" beat 5/10 commerce for $100/hr. Who are you? If I don't know you in LA I have a hard time with your claims

First of all, why are you so mad? Secondly, I said very good regs can beat those LA games for more than $100/hr. It's true. Heck, Bart Hanson even made his results public where he earned over $100/hr for 3 consecutive 500 hour periods. What's more likely...that Bart is the luckiest person in the world...or that the games are simply beatable for greater than $100/hr? And why don't you know who I am? Well, for starters, I don't live in LA. Who are you?

Continued jabbing at people will result in temp bans. So stop it.

Some people seem to get offended any time that its suggested that win rates can go as high as X, because they know they cant make X. It makes them feel inferior so they argue that X is impossible. Arguing makes them feel better about their own results.

The fact is that most people posting here are very ABC players. Many are way too tight and nitty. Some of these same people argue that you can do this or that profitably.

For example, they say:

You cant raise SCs in EP profitably
You cant donk into the raiser profitably
You cant raise JT in MP with 3 short stacks behind you.....ect ect

Player A argues that these things and many other non standard things can be done profitably and Player A argues that win rate caps are X

Player B argues that those foreign things can never be done profitably and win rate caps are much lower than X

Then you would think if player B was smart and would open his mind he might see the error of his ways.

I think that games with deeper blind levels can lead to increased win rates. I also think I made a mistake all this time buying for 100B when my games allowed to buy for 200BB. Then again, I felt I had to be conservative with my bankroll.

OTOH, in the 2-5 games I play, especially this time of year, I can't understand how people can win for $70/hr. Not only are they reg-infested, but the weak players playing are battle-hardened and the mistakes they make are not as big.

Recently I started mixing 1-3 sessions and it's unbelievable how easier they are. They may be 60% of the stakes, but the skill level is like 30% of what it is at 2-5. There usually is a whale that has gotten hot and has a huge stack, a few big fishes, a few small fishes and a few weak reg who are nowhere near the skill level of the 2-5 regs.

I am legit thinking I can win for 15BB/hr at this game, but I am not sure I can I beat the 2-5 for 10BB/hr, especially if I am buying for 100BB.

Not sure where you play but some places are very seasonal. Here in S. Florida, win rates are easily 30%+ higher during snowbird season.

Im not as convinced that win rates are much higher in 200BB games as everyone else is. I admit that I could be wrong, but when I play in 200BB max games, I don't see much different going on than in the 100BB max games. I dont see people maximizing FE by making huge bets and I rarely see two 200BB+ stacks getting all in. If I was to guess Id say I see it once every 30+ hours.

Of course I play during the daytime. I hear stories of huge pots being played after midnight quite often. If youre playing most of your hours after midnight, win rate caps could be even higher.

In my new city, there is usually one 2/5 table and infinite 1/3 tables. I am 100% convinced that my expected hourly in dollars (not just BBs) is higher at 1/3.

I mix in some 2/5 hours to get used to it, but if I were playing for a living I would just stick with 1/3. There are no wales at 2/5 here, they are all playing PLO.

Love this post.

I don't have enough experience playing the current games to opine on the max win rate. But I'm sure as crap not going to look at typesticks results and blindly assume he runs good with no other information to validate that crazy assertion.

I mean if we realize that we are playing against an opponents range and not a specific hand, why can't we realize typesticks actual win rate is also a range where the top end is something higher that his 500 hour results and the bottom end is something lower than those results.

I'm confused at why people are tripped up by this.

Becasue the vast majority of people who have 500 hour runs like that are not that good. Most are on a heater.

He may be that good in the long run, but it would be the top .5% of winning players probably.

Or said differently, the number of people who experience a 500 hour win rate of 20+bb/hr >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of people who will have a lifetime win rate of 20bb/hr.

So odds and all.

I agree that Typesick is probably on a heater. I cant imagine $120/hr at 2/5 is possible long term, but there's a huge gap between $70 and $120. The cap is most likely somewhere in the middle.

Anther thing....I see people post in the strat forum all the time that the majority of all your money is made in low-mid stakes by value betting. I disagree. I think you can increase your win rate by 50%+ by learning when / where to bluff. Ive only recently started getting good at it, and I know what I'm seeing in my results.

The win rate cap for a good ABC TAG playing 2/5 may be 7-8BBs, but once you open up your game, learn to exploit people, play LAGier, bluff more....the limits are much higher than what the good ABC TAG can imagine.

They are very similar. HOWEVER

when I was in vegas I was preparing to pay for my kids college education. I was 100% focused in playing my best game possible. I also did a fair amt of work away from the table and had the mindset that I needed to destroy in order to provide

After BF I told my wife I had 2-3 years of live poker in me. I had already spent an absolute ton of time in those dumps playing advantage blackjack and really prefer not to be in a casino environment

When I got to Florida I was quite burned out. I had already far exceeded the 2-3 years. My kids college was set and I had little motivation. I still discussed hands but I was no longer really trying to be a serial killer. My session lengths were significantly shorter and my drive was not there.

I always try to do my best and bring my A+ game...but in all honesty I did not achieve that in florida and still managed to knock back north of 50 per

That being said I played an absolute ton of online poker and worked my ass off getting good at the stakes I played

My suggestion would be to post hands and get feedback, especially in any "cooler" hands or "unlucky" hands; it's possible they aren't nearly as coolerish/unlucky as you think. And even just some other hands in general, as you might not be playing nearly as well as you think (especially if coolers have affected you mentally).

GgoodluckG