I don't understand why everyone is so quick to say that 30bb/100 is not sustainable at these lower levels. If the site is soft enough it's most certainly possible. 30bb+/100 for a crusher in live poker is normal and please don't give me that lol sample size bs.
I don't understand why everyone is so quick to say that 30bb/100 is not sustainable at these lower levels. If the site is soft enough it's most certainly possible. 30bb+/100 for a crusher in live poker is normal and please don't give me that lol sample size bs.
Uhh.. No it's not. And, I'm not sure why you think sample size is bs. You could literally play an entire year full time live, and still be dealing with a small sample size that is subject to extreme variance. And, yes the 20k hands OP is dealing with is tiny. That's like a weekends worth of hands for a lot of grinders.
Uhh.. No it's not. And, I'm not sure why you think sample size is bs. You could literally play an entire year full time live, and still be dealing with a small sample size that is subject to extreme variance. And, yes the 20k hands OP is dealing with is tiny. That's like a weekends worth of hands for a lot of grinders.
Ok, what kind of sample size would be significant? I've played 3 years live (full time) with a 30+bb/100 winrate. My buddy has done so over 10 years. I have multiple other friends that have crushed for anywhere from 2 to 5 years. What kind of sample size will suffice for you, or are all these live players just running way above expectations and should only be making like 1bb/hr?
Ok, what kind of sample size would be significant? I've played 3 years live (full time) with a 30+bb/100 winrate. My buddy has done so over 10 years. I have multiple other friends that have crushed for anywhere from 2 to 5 years. What kind of sample size will suffice for you, or are all these live players just running way above expectations and should only be making like 1bb/hr?
Apples to oranges. Live players suck, so good live player Winrates can be much higher than good online players.
Ok, what kind of sample size would be significant? I've played 3 years live (full time) with a 30+bb/100 winrate. My buddy has done so over 10 years. I have multiple other friends that have crushed for anywhere from 2 to 5 years. What kind of sample size will suffice for you, or are all these live players just running way above expectations and should only be making like 1bb/hr?
Well. I've personally experienced, and seen other people deviate 15bb/100 over 100k hand sample sizes. I'd say 500k hands at the minimum to get a good idea of someones winrate. Preferably a million hands. So, what would that be, like 8-16 years playing 8 hours a day 5 days a week live?
Not sure the hyperbole of "all these live players just running way above expectations and should only be making like 1bb/hr" really gets you anywhere. I never said anything that could be remotely construed that way.
Last edited by Hendrix2323; 02-02-2015 at 05:14 AM.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 30bb/100 is actually attainable at Bovada over a significant sample size. I'm just saying that people shouldn't automatically dismiss it as a possibility simply because that winrate is not anywhere close to being attainable on other major sites. The stats for the other sites are really cool and interesting but aren't necessary relevant to OP playing on Bovada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendrix2323
I just started back into poker on Bovada, and experienced a 17 BI downswing at nl25 about a month ago against worse players than I played at my lowest level on stars.
Isn't it possible that this is partially a result of you not being a crushing player on Bovada yet? Obviously you have the aptitude to crush the game but it's not unreasonable to say that even the best players need to make adjustments to optimize their play for a new game...in this case to play against very poor competition. There are lines that one can take which may be more optimal vs terribad opponents that one wouldn't even consider taking in a game with decent players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendrix2323
Crazy stuff can happen over small sample sizes against awful players, that you wouldn't believe if you didn't see it. Obviously that can go the other way too. There's all kinds of top winners at stakes that post million hand graphs that go up at a 45 degree angle, but if you look close, you can see 100k breakeven, or even losing, stretches.
Sure, if the competition is tough enough. However, the greater your edge the less likely it is for this to occur. From a live perspective, 100k hands would be close to 2 years of play. No crushing live player will ever go through such a stretch in live cash games. In some soft games if a crushing player has a losing month that is a huge deal. Of course I'm making an apples and oranges comparison but perhaps comparing pokerstars winrates/variance to that of Bovada is also an apples and oranges comparison.
Also, it should be noted that when looking at winrates for all microstakes players that these winrates will likely skew far lower than what is possible given that the best poker players in the world do not play these stakes and the best players that do play these stakes are likely to only play them for a relatively short period of time.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that 30bb/100 is actually attainable at Bovada over a significant sample size. I'm just saying that people shouldn't automatically dismiss it as a possibility simply because that winrate is not anywhere close to being attainable on other major sites. The stats for the other sites are really cool and interesting but aren't necessary relevant to OP playing on Bovada.
I'm not dismissing it because it isn't attainable on Stars. I'm dismissing it because it isn't attainable on Bovada. While Bovada is easier than Stars, it is not that easy that you are going to see obscenly different winrates. Like maybe you see 3 or 4bb/100 more than Stars. A 4bb/100 guy becomes a 7bb/100 guy or something like that.
Quote:
Isn't it possible that this is partially a result of you not being a crushing player on Bovada yet? Obviously you have the aptitude to crush the game but it's not unreasonable to say that even the best players need to make adjustments to optimize their play for a new game...in this case to play against very poor competition. There are lines that one can take which may be more optimal vs terribad opponents that one wouldn't even consider taking in a game with decent players.
Really doesn't have anything to do with adjusting to players. When you downswing big, you keep putting the money in good, and losing every time, or running into coolers. Like you litterally wouldn't believe it was mathematically possible if you didn't see it with your own eyes. Every grinder that has put in significant volume knows what I'm talking about. This isn't my thread, so I don't really want to make it about me. But, if you feel like seeing about 20 more of the following from that downswing (which I'm sure you don't, lol) you are more than welcome to PM me.
Preflop: Hero is CO with 2 2
MP raises to $0.75, Hero calls $0.75, BTN folds, SB calls $0.65, BB folds
Flop: ($2.50) 2 K 3 (3 players)
SB checks, MP bets $1, Hero raises to $3, SB calls $3, MP raises to $11.25, Hero raises to $23.90 and is all-in, SB raises to $36.55, MP calls $14.07 and is all-in
Turn: ($77.04) K (3 players, 2 are all-in) River: ($77.04) A (3 players, 2 are all-in)
Spoiler:
Results: $77.04 pot ($2 rake)
Final Board: 2 K 3 K A
SB showed 2 3 and won $0.00 (-$26.07 net)
MP showed A K and won $75.04 ($48.97 net)
Hero showed 2 2 and lost (-$24.65 net)
River: ($5.85) Q (2 players)
UTG bets $1.24, Hero raises to $9.57, UTG calls $2.29 and is all-in
Spoiler:
Results: $12.91 pot ($0.64 rake)
Final Board: Q A 5 Q Q
UTG showed Q K and won $12.27 ($5.99 net)
MP mucked 7 T and lostHero showed A A and lost (-$6.28 net)
Adjusting to players isn't going to stop runner-runners, and 2 outters. Just happens once in a while, and sometimes in succession over and over.
Quote:
Sure, if the competition is tough enough. However, the greater your edge the less likely it is for this to occur. From a live perspective, 100k hands would be close to 2 years of play. No crushing live player will ever go through such a stretch in live cash games. In some soft games if a crushing player has a losing month that is a huge deal. Of course I'm making an apples and oranges comparison but perhaps comparing pokerstars winrates/variance to that of Bovada is also an apples and oranges comparison.
Also, it should be noted that when looking at winrates for all microstakes players that these winrates will likely skew far lower than what is possible given that the best poker players in the world do not play these stakes and the best players that do play these stakes are likely to only play them for a relatively short period of time.
I kind of doubt 1 month of losing in live play for a winner is that big of a deal. That's like 5k hands max if someone is playing 40 hours a week, lol. I mean, this weekend alone I put in 25k hand, and experienced everything from a 20BI upswing to a 10 BI downswing over differing 5k sects of hands. Today alone (I haven't recieved HH's from Bovada yet) I'm pretty sure I was -10BI's in all in EV alone in ~10k hands, and lost pretty much every flip, 80/20, 2 to 1. The cards are no different in live, so that would be akin to losing every flip, 80/20, 2 to 1, etc... for 2 straight months live. **** can happen just as much live, as online.
Last edited by Hendrix2323; 02-02-2015 at 08:03 AM.