I'd recommend that but I could only usually get there around 6 or 7.

I'm not a morning person at all but sometimes I'd randomly wake up at 4 or 5 well rested and then it was poker time

I’ve done a couple early mornings before I go into real work the last few weeks. The one casino has a big weekday night, so I went the morning after, usually getting there around 2-3am. Play is bad, some are very drunk. It’s just physically demanding because I then go to work afterwards, so I usually have to go to bed pretty early a couple nights in a row

I couldn't do that on a weekday, I'd be way too tired to make it past 3 at work. But I'm tempted one of these days to go to sleep early on a Friday and go to the cardroom real early on a Saturday morning to see what kind of drunk degen action I find.

I’ve gone to bed early quite a few times and arrived at Aria / Wynn at 2-3am. Pretty much see the same game I see at 2-3pm. I’m not sure here it’s worth the odd sleep schedule.

i can't speak for others, but typically i need to be at work at 3pm (desk jockey), though not 3 am.

Confirmed that RunGood on 13.2 (non-Beta) version is working.

I assume 13.2 (Beta 3) had some issues with RunGood.

Watching Doug Polk talk about Postle I found this moment. He asserts that maybe live players at lower stakes can win 10bb/hr but he is skeptical of even that, because live players don't nec. report/record results accurately. Probably it can be done at the best games in the world.

EDIT: Can't get the time right in the link, but it's 39:00



now, I think Polk and some guys like him don't really understand lower stakes live very well. How transparent some people can be, to where you can legitimately Postle them at times. People punting off a buy in cuz it's time to go home.

But, obviously the guy knows poker and he has played in relatively soft live games and WSOP events, so it's not as if he is completely ignorant on the issue and has never seen purely recreational players in action. He actually has made comments in other vids that show he understands this better than some higher stakes pros. e.g. he realizes you can crudely exploit truly bad players with inconsistent bet sizing.

Anyway, I think it's a piece of the puzzle. He might be somewhat off. But to me, it is a little gravity against the 16bb/hr type claims.

One should expect these guys to say certain things, borderline clickbait.

Plus neither of them have put in significant amount of hours in LLSNL in probably forever.

Certain win rate is achievable as long as loss rate from other players are there. Postle's win rate was insane, but what was more absurd is the loss rate of those players in Sacramento. That game probably had the highest loss rate of any casino in the US.

It's pretty clear to me that he is giving his honest opinion. If the vid was "Anyone claiming more than 10bb/hr is a LIAR!!!" that might be clickbait, but I don't think this postle vid got more clicks from these comments. Well, OK, maybe it will get like 12 because of this thread.

In general, I don't think he is often trolling when giving his opinions on such matters. I think his views come from people wanting to hear the opinions and insights of a world class player. He gets clicks by being accurate.

I agree these guys don't play tons of llsnl, and stipulated that. But WSOP events are even softer and he played those. He's also watched a bunch of these Postle hands he is discussing and seen the unbelievably bad play, even for the stakes.

He's also probably smart enough to watch LATB hands, or similar games he has played in, and imagine a table full of the bad recs in those games.

I don't know what Doug Polk does or does not play these days.

Bart Hanson, on the other hand, has been playing regularly in Los Angeles 5-5 games (at the Bike and Hustler, where the buy-in cap is $1K) and now that he has decamped to Las Vegas, at Red Rock and at least one session at Caesars at 2-5; also in various cardrooms in places like Best Bet in Jacskonville, FL and (this week) in Austin, TX. He documents his low-stakes play on the Crush Live Poker podcast.

It is probably worth asking him what he thinks are achievable win rates in these games.

ETA: I have just checked the pertinent thread in the Crush Live Poker forums, and in 2019, after 145 hours, Bart is pulling $96/hour at 5-5 and equivalent games, or a hair over 19bb/hour.

145 hrs is a short sample. He's done the challenges every year and the results are not that high, though still impressive. He's also posted his 5/10 results a bunch and those are over 10bb/hr, but not by much. Over that current 145hr stretch, he said Jacksonville has been the softest he's found. He thinks those games are five years behind what he's used to and he thinks the 2/5 $800BI there can be beat for $70/hr+.

I know a 2/5 $500max buy in game that can be beaten for more then $70-$100/hr so I don't doubt that about the Jax game. However, how many hours of those 145 hours could he have put in at Best Bet? He could've been at an extra soft table for 10 hours or whatever it was.

Best Bet may well be very soft but I dont put much credence into that statement unless the guy has played at least 100 hours there. After 100 hours his own win rate wont have gotten anywhere near where it will be long term, but an experienced player should be able to make an estimate of potential win rates after playing a 100ish hour sample since it will have been over multiple tables/days/times of the day. He will be able to compare the action and skill level to his normal game and go from there.

It sounded like he did one or two sessions there, so def an insignificant sample size. I think what's important is the WR estimates overall. I think Doug's view applies to 10/20+, but Bart's experience shows 5bb/hr sets the bar too low for stakes lower than ~5/10 low cap.

I think someone had brought this up before that loss rate is probably a better indicator of what is possible.

You could be the best player in the world, but if your opponents are the tightest nits in the world, chances are, your WR is probably not going to be very high.

On the other hand, you could be a very average player, but your opponents are shoving blind, showing opponents cards, and constantly buying in thousands, your WR can probably be sky high.

Imagine a directory of casinos with loss rate:

Casino Nitfest
Type of Games: 1/2
Average loss rate: 1bb per player

Casino Regulars
Type of Games: 1/2
Average loss rate: 3bb per player

Casino Freemoney Stone
Type of Games: 1/3
Average loss rate: 10bb per player

The average loss per player is going to be a measure of the rake dropped, nothing more nor less.

You're saying a 100bb cap game can be beaten for over 20bb/hr on a long term basis?

Correct. But rake dropped is highly correlated with type of players in the game.

Looser players, bigger pots, more rake.

Not many of them, but I know one that I believe 15-20BB/hr and possibly a bit higher is possible.

What does that mean?

I don't quite follow.

Are you differentiating loss rate from win rate, rather than a combined rate?

$10/hr loss rate to the rake + $20/hr win rate = $10/hr win??? rate.

Are you assigning different variables to each of the three?

FWIW, yes, if table plays 30 hands per hour and is raking $5 per hand, the table is "losing" $150/hr and each player is losing $16.67/hr in a 9-handed game.

That's not the loss rate I am inferring, given that the term "win rate" is used as a final tally from ($x final cashout - $y buy-in(plus rebuys)) / z type spent, my inference to loss rate is basically result of the same calculation that ends below 0.

No?

He said loss / player is equal to rake. (With a few small adjustments.)
I said I agree, but the amount of rake being taken is related to the type of player.
A table full of loose players will have larger pots, so the max rake will (likely) get hit more often. So the rake / hour goes up. Meaning the average loss per player goes up.

Miscommunication on terminology I suppose.

What I thought I was communicating is the average loss per player per hour out of individual's pocket.

If a player has "win rate" of $10/hr, what do you refer to the number of another player that loses $10/hr playing poker?

The point is that, on average, the 9 players are going to break even except for what they pay in rake, tips and cocktails.

But I think your point is important. I assume you mean, we should consider what recreational players are losing. Usually when I think about this, it pushes my guesses about the win rates of winning players down.

When there is a poker boom-- when poker is introduced to an area, a lot of really clueless players will be in the game. But after a while, they get sick of losing, go broke, their wives found out that they lost $10,000 over the last few months, poker won't be novel anymore, etc. Some will improve.

When everything settles down, you can ask if it seems reasonable that there is a steady stream of regulars who drop $60/hr in a 1/3 game for years, or whatever the number might be.