Why are you drawing conclusions about a 23hr sample size? Oh yeah, btw, there's no such thing as an "exact win rate" you spoke of previously.

He's talking about the 261 hrs of 1/3, but yeah, it's less than 8k hands compared to ~4k of the 2/5. They're both completely meaningless samples.

Here is a rule of thumb for you. Does adding or subtracting 10 BI to your winnings make a big difference to results? If so your results aren't even close to meaning anything.

Your 1/2 sample is meaningless.
Your 1/3 sample is meaningless.
Your 2/5 sample is the most dangerous one as you ran ridiculous over a tiny sample and this is the one you will be drawn towards.

The other game types show you have game selection issue and are really lucky you ran good in them.

What's funny is the one that is most likely the biggest sign of variance from your actual result given most players are losers and even the winning players have small winrates is the 2/5 one. Once again though meaningless sample size is meaningless.

What your results do show you is that your time spent in a casino playing poker, and I assume your results include drunk sessions etc, is that you aren't even a tiny bit close to putting in enough volume and that is one of the variables in your poker career that you have relatively strong control over.

The reason you're making these excuses and relying on 'sick reads' are your fundamentals are garbage. You see so much clicking live as people don't have a solid strategy so every spot is reliant on reads.

This is part of the reason you struggle to put in volume and long sessions. You lack fundamentals and have to rely on reads which when you're tired or wrong cost you a fortune. You've done well till this point as extreme aggression is increadibly profitable as players play poorly against it.

If you put any serious volume online you will get murdered but this would be a good thing if you recognised this and worked harder at your profession.

Your mental game is also weak. Here's my one piece of advice, you've got nothing to prove to anyone at the table. If you're truly confident in your game you won't make all this ego plays.

Best of luck.

It's funny someone with so many leaks in their game is worrying about being a crusher despite being on the verge of going busto. Your primary objective right now should be to build your bankroll. It would take you several years to become a crusher but you're not going to even have a chance if your bankroll is $0.

This probably has something to do with your simple approach postflop in most hands which is I haz pair, so I'm all in or sometimes I haz Ace high, so I'm all in.

I wouldn't expect expert analysis from random 1/3 players, but the reason they are confused is because you play relatively nitty. You are folding many hands that you should be playing, and the few times you do play hands you often overplay them. The reason they will give you respect is because you are folding so many hands.

6,

You are correct that thin value at these stakes is what separates the crushers from the rest.

But, this is all comes down to superior hand-reading, real understanding the player pool tendencies and exploiting POST-flop edge.

NOT bloating pots preflop with tier 2/3 hands and over bluffing against stationy fish who continue with way more of their range than they should.

Also regarding this:
This is clear evidence that of why 3betting light doesn't work at these stakes. It doesn't matter how they range you and that range is significantly tighter than what your actual range is in that spot. What matters is the action ... they don't fold, whether out of tilt and/or curiosity. This is what makes fish, fish.

So the way to exploit that is to tighten the f*** up, and show them AA-KK, when they say "Aww, I put you on AK. Nice hand" *ships 200BBs in 6's direction*

6,

FWIW, I do think you’ve caught a little more abuse about your game than merited. Like some other people have posted, I think there’s a good chance you’re a small winner in these small live games.

The problem with your play is you don’t have enough experience or understanding of the game to understand which pieces of your game are solid and which have just worked out well for you due to running good in high variance spots.

I think you could actually learn to become a strong winning player. But it’s clear that it’s not going to happen for you playing mainly live. If you want to become a real live crusher, you need to build a solid fundamental winning base first. Your way of trying to improve your game by “reviewing” and just stubbornly defending all your live plays simply isn’t working.

Want to become a big winner? Focus on playing a ****load of hands online until you become a solid winner at low stakes online over a decent sample. Once you’ve done that, you’ll find it easy to adapt that to a solid basic live strat, and have a much stronger feel for how and when to apply highly effective and profitable aggression.

or could be the paltry 141 farking hours you've logged... 141 hrs live... i thought u said u did a year of statistics which meant you understood variance?

The most alarming thing is 465 hours in 6 months. How do you expect to get better and make enough money if you don’t put in the hours?

Those #s kind of skew the truth. The reason being he's been putting a lot more hours in the past couple weeks. Removing that time frame the #s look much worse.

It's funny because he always talks about how he's a reg. I always chuckle at that because where I play the majority of players at an average weekday 2/5 table put in more hours than he does.

I think OP posted the stats to just show how good he is, he is just unlucky he can't beat bad players. But in his time as a "poker pro" he made 15k in 6 months putting in under half the volume you'd do with a full time job. He made about as much as if had gotten a full time minimum wage job over the same period.

Drawing conclusions based on a 4k hand sample? Putting in 465 hours of volume over 6 months, which equates to less than 18 hours a week?

This has got to be a joke/troll. The funniest part is when you say you understand variance.

Exactly. He for sure doesent understand variance, plus a bunch of other concepts as well. Saying verbally that he understands it in this thread doesent mean shyt regarding that matter.

this breakdown illustrates the simple fact that you are wasting time at the peanut steaks. You should clearly be playing more 5/T nl, 10/20 nl and 5/T omaha

Also have you tracked the sydney 2/5/10 as 2/5 or 5/10? Should be logged as 5/10

Yeah I logged that as 5/10.

I also logged the 5/5/10 PLO as a 5/10 too.

I generally treat the straddle as a big blind.

Yep. He spends money in real life as if his true hourly at the poker table is $80+. Based on a 4k hand sample. I don't understand how someone can be so immensely ignorant of variance, yet claim they understand it well. It's quite extraordinary.

Inspiring grasp of variance and an admirable commitment to volume.

lulz

6bet, why are you dodging my question, we are all dying to know the anniversary present you got in return.

Probably because he knows what a POS you are that you're trying to prove some redundant ****ing point that really says a lot more about you or OPs girlfriend. It's more than likely that she didn't get him anything and so what? She probably didn't ask him for anything either. There's nothing wrong with that and that fact proves nothing about OPs girlfriend or their relationship, all it does is highlight the fact that OP is a generous person with terrible spending habits but that's been illustrated in a hundred different ways throughout the thread.

Why are you even clowning around with 1/3? Just play 2/5 and print money

Imagine how pathetic you have to be, to be cucked by OP. lul

fyp

What is with this trend of loser, white dudes constantly using the work "cuck" these days? Is that what they teach you in the course you bought on being ALPHA ?

Do you have hard evidence this perp is a white male?