Cheers, Sol Reader has said that the majority aren't pros and the regs that are there are pretty braindead, will be going to investigate next week

cheers, this is congruent with what I've heard i.e the majority of regs are basically clueless couldn't beat NL10 players. Are you a live pro in London or rec/reg ?

I've avoided the softness discussion just because I don't believe you can find out really. The variance between tables is high, and the variance between random days is very high, so I think you never reach sample size.

its not like that at all. There are some players who are amazing, very talented and i think they can beat any game but you only get like 2 players like that on your table in the worst case. i do make my living of poker but i never say i am a pro poker player because SOOO many bums say they are pro poker players and i want to punch them in the face because people who dont know about poker think we are all bums

so it is like that then.

WR ?

well as Sciolist said it is complicated on average table in winter you will get 1 or 2 very good player 1 or 2 rocks 1-3 pro wannabes and 2-3 fish maybe sometimes 3 rocks and only 1 or 2 fish on summer you get the same but with 1-2 fish and a BIG fish doing chunks. i hope you dont expect to go and crush them for 100k a month or something

Sol Reader makes 15-20k a month there playing mainly 2/5 and 5/10, I'm probably similar / comparable in skill + more rolled, 150k a year at mostly 5-10 would be nice.

I often find that when someone says they are a poker pro, they usually mean that they play lots and don't have any other source of income. I wouldn't even bother asking if they are a winning player! Bankroll/life management are more important than knowing when to float a tourist imo.

Oh good, another winrate discussion already.

If you play 400 hours a month (which you don't) at 50 hands an hour (which you don't), you are on 20k hands a month. 20k hands does not get you anything like near sample size for winrate, particularly not a 25% variation in winrate.

yeah I'm not talking about calculating my exact winrate down to +- 0.1BB/hr ffs, suffice to say that 48wksx40 hours (I'd probably do more tbh ), requires around 8BB/hr at 5-10, which should be fairly easily attainable for me.

You said "15-20k/month", which is pretty much the same thing as calculating it to 0.1bb/hr with your sample size.

no, the 5k gap was based on hours played, I'm not sure the above is valid or correct at all but I really don't care about your pedanticism/ preaching so I won't debate.

Well you've certainly been a valuable addition to the thread so far, haven't you?

^ bulliedatschool

QED

Sol is really good though and has played at high levels online.

Reggy games usually require much more high variance lines to win in and if you lose it can be hard to get it back. Furthermore reggy games don't last.

Also as mentioned variance is really high. If there is one big punter in the game do you get your big hands vs them or the reg who never moves a chip? Do u get set under set vs someone who has just sat down with 300quid or someone sitting with 2k so u lose a 3k pot? The same viceversa. Even with a big edge in the game these situations are the main determinant of if you win or lose.

Player skill and game selection are always the two greatest determinants of winrate over any kind of sample, given the size of the edge I expect to have in these games run-bad will not result in me losing for protracted periods of time.

Sol has said that he'd probably be a break-even 2/4 online player, I'm beating 200z for a good rate , and 3-6 + on Euro sites over a small-ish sample. A lot of the strat he posted in the other thread is pretty duhhh for a lot of people. Bart Hanson/ Crush live Poker tweeted that decent starting hand selection will put you in the top couple of % live 2-5/5-10 players, decent hand-reading putting you in the top 1 %, a decent grasp of exploitative play and combinatorics putting you in the crusher level in a game in which even the self-proclaimed regulars are unbalanced and exploitable on every street.

2-5 live, according to Gangip, is about as hard as the smallest stakes online, and the average 100z winner is much better at poker than the average mid-high stakes live reg. If what I've been hearing and reading about the ****** regs playing, then Sol's statement about anyone with two brain cells being a big winner at London live is probably true.

Unlucky

So glad I wasn't drinking when I read this. I literally LOLed!

Economics at a top 10 Uni whilst treating school as a joke and running a business I started at 14, unlucky you silly pretentious ****

dont get me wrong but you have the wrong thinking to play live. you only want to play for the money not because you like playing. you gonna see the same idiots telling the same stupid stories using the same stupid "pick up lines" from the 60s trying to get the dealers and the waitress to go out with them for 40 hours a week 48 weeks a year. if you have big money goals and dont love playing when things go bad (and things do go bad) you will get frastraded so much that you will quite, play bad or play bigger and get ruined. if you want to play full time 2/5-5/10 make a goal of 60-70k and you can live like a king with 60k tax free anything more is a bonus. you dont even have to grind that hard to make that

Don't know how you came to the conclusion I don't like playing. I wouldn't have spent months studying the game, still studying it now,f I didn't. I will enjoy seeing these idiots as I take their money. Poker is a business, one which I am lucky to enjoy and I have no problem working longer hours than that. I don't understand so called " pros " who work 25 hours a week. Should also add that I will be getting coaching from live players, all of whom average > $100 an hour over large samples to aid in the transition from online to live and that I'm already well-rolled for 5-10

Money is one of my main motivators in life. Having done work experience at UBS, BARCAP, iCap and a city law firm, I hated them all. I would never, ever, use poker as my only source of income for many years, property development is something that I will be doing in the future. I feel that I'd be underachieving if all I did was play poker, no offence intended to anyone ITT. I'm probably going to look into getting a MSC at UCL or LSE and playing in my spare time during that year before I even consider committing to the live grind.

60k a year is also **** all in London. You can't buy a decent family house or accumulate any kind of wealth with that.

For the record, that tweet is definitely just wrong. Basically there is kind of a continuum of regulars from break even (or slightly losing) to good, where the break even regulars are indeed pretty bad but the good players would be / are solid winners online.

Comparing ability of online players to live players is difficult because in live you try and play more exploitative in general and preflop strategy is very different (mostly just playing more hands/multiway pots because people are worse and generally deeper than online). That said an average 100nl reg winner online would automatically beat up to 2/5 live, but with a winrate significantly lower than the best live regs (at least initially, he might then adjust). If a good 5/10 live reg tried to use the same preflop strategy he uses live at 100nl online he would be a losing play, but after adjusting (which isn't especially hard) he would be a winning player.

All the good regs are aware of balance/exploitability and aren't massively exploitable on every street lol.