I posted a while back 9.74 BBs at 5/10. About 10 hours ago it was 9.98 BB. I only have like 350 hours but I have a very good sense of where I stand and I am very confident my winrate is right around 9.5-10 BB in this game. That said, the game has been tougher this year for whatever reason. I play on average 2x a week, 5 hours per week, so my sessions are spread out over a few years.

I think these ceilings are right. I find it hard to imagine (myself) sustaining 12 BB per hour... I was at 13 BB at my peak, but that's when I was running hot.

The difference between 10bb/hr vs 12bb/hr over 350 hours at 5/10 is 700bb, which is a handful of pots going a different way, or not happening, or happening. It's one amazing session. You can't have that level of confidence over that sample, especially over several years of shifting conditions.

Mike is presumably talking about full time hours (ie: 2000+ per year) which is the only context sustainable/attainable win rates should be discussed in. And to that I’d say a) good luck getting 2000 hours of 5/10 in one year let alone year in year out and b) lol if you think your long term expectation is 10 BB/hr.

The typical advice is 20 buyins. This needs to be tweaked based on game type (PLO = double to triple that), game aggressiveness, your style (Lag, Tag, etc.).

10 buyins sounds like a lot until the first time you drop 8 in 5 hours.

This.
How many hours you have playing this so called SO SOFT game?
Maybe it seens soft because you are running well and players are running bad and getting cooled often by you.
Be carefull and keep tracking your results.

GL

The Kelly Criterion really doesn’t apply very well to poker. Firstly it assumes the availability of a continuous selection of bet sizes/stakes, which poker doesn’t have, especially live poker has very narrow selection. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, winrate doesn’t scale with stakes, so we would have to play hundreds of thousands of hands every time we move up just to know what inputs we should be using for the equations.

Most people are correctly much more conservative than Kelly when it comes to poker BRM.

If you have a job, then you're fine to keep playing.

It may be time for me to move to find a place with 5/10 action more available and this has been bothering me? I’m thinking my only options are Vegas (toughest 5/10 I hear), cali, boston, and DC/balt?

Getting chippy in here again folks. Gentle reminder to all to post respectfully.

Don’t make Garick track you down and beat you with some medieval blunt object.

What if we're into that kind of thing?

Asking for a friend

NTTAWWT

^in that case, carry on.

Right but the knowing is only good if the data can be reliably and accurately obtained. The likelihood that any more than a handful of posters are posting precise numbers ITT is dubious at best IMO. And this says nothing of survivorship bias, etc.

IOW I get what your saying, I just don't believe you will find the answer you are looking for ITT. But that's just me

I just wanted to point out briefly that everyone ITT should remain seriously open minded when it comes to possible attainable winrates. Many of you may remember me from when I was a live pro and regged this thread + LLSNL pretty frequently. Anyway I played about 2300 hours live around 2017-2018 around 2/5 level and won At about 7bb/hr over that sample. I was pretty certain I was the best reg in all the games I played in and had many people say this same thing to me. I was convinced that my winrate was about as high as you could get in super high rake environments and that the winrate bottleneck was rake and not my ability as a poker player.

The past couple years I've been playing online full time and since the beginning of the year have been studying every single day, playing every day, I've spent thousands on coaching, and currently my main game online is 1knl.

When I look back on who I was as a poker player when I played live full time, I genuinely cringe at just how bad I was. This guy who was one of the biggest winners and thought he was the best player in the city, and quite frankly probably was, the guy winning consistently at 7bb/hour in high rake environments, was truly awful at poker.

I haven't touched poker chips in what feels like nearly 2 years but I sometimes fantasize about the carnage I could cause on the live felt if I played in those same games with the knowledge about the game that I now have.

What I found was interesting was that I genuinely felt It was not possible to pull more money out of those games than I was at the time. If I played against that guy today I would immediately tag him as the mark.

TL:dr

Don't underestimate how little you know about poker (this applies to literally everyone playing LLSNL) and don't underestimate the sheer cognitive dissonance and biases you're likely to harbour if you believe X to be the be all and end all.

That's the thing. I know my winrate over the thousands of hours I have played in my game, but in spite of that, i don't feel like I'm elite. Sometimes I really question my game, despite my results. I'm better than most people I play with, sure, but I have so much further to go. I'm nowhere near playing optimally.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Meale you were a live pro for like 30 days before giving up and thought $100k/year was a drop in the bucket at 2/5.

if thats the case why are u playing in that room? back in reno, where u can match the biggest stack just like Greektown in detroit, theres some pretty big stacks in the $1-2 NL. here in scottsdale, the buyin is $100-600 in the lowest stakes $2-3 NL, and most buyin $600, im about the ONLY person buying in $100 because everyone in scottsdale is insanely wealthy compared to the US population in general. id find a better room with better action if i were u

to make a steady $1000 per week on average, u need to put in at least 50 or so hours per week, and to only sit with the minimum when u first sit til u watch how the others are playing. i cant tell u how many people lost their buyins quickly because they could not get over the idea of always buying in for the max. u need to be the ONLY person buying in for less, and then all the money will go to you alone. u dont want the others to shortstack too, or your edge disappears

oops. was trying to edit my post, not type it twice. sorry

I was a live pro for over a year before graduating to more lucrative games. I have no idea what point youre trying to prove with your second point... 100k / year playing 2/5 live is extremely possible... that was kind of my point.

Why did you make the switch from live to online?
Why are you no longer playing live at all?

Where does a game like that exist?

I can’t speak to 5/10, and even after a year of grinding 2/5 full time my sample isn’t huge, but based on what I’ve seen and experienced I would take the over on 10bb/hr being achievable for a pro who both studies and is disciplined at the table. It also depends on how many hours they are playing. I’m over 10bb/hr hour this year at 2/5, but Florida poker kinda blows in the summer so in July and August I played a little less than 120 hours per month. If I forced myself to stay in crappy games more often, my winrate would definitely suffer.

1knl is 5/10 online

I've never seen 1k games run on PokerStars, highest games I sometimes see running are 500 zoom.

I don't play 1/2 anymore except for the times I'm waiting for a 2/5 seat. There are no 1/2 games in my area that are much deeper. The max buy in at most rooms in my area for 1/2 is $200. Its actually $300 where I play and there's a few that do buy in max, but the avg has to be around $100.

I can only imagine what a really good player could do in a deep 1/2 game.