Poker has been a hobby of mine on and off since I was 16 (I am now 36). I love studying the game. However, I have a full time career and a young family so I cannot play as much as I’d like.

I just started getting back into poker for the last 2 months. I have re-read modern poker theory, watched/read/listen to many of the free poker education content creators and started studying some solver outputs from the free version of GTO wizard. I probably study about 90% of the time and play 10% of the time. I have no idea if my current form is profitable due to extremely small sample size.

I am a very analytical and obsessive person by nature. I have to acknowledge the addictive nature of poker and the potentially infinite money pit if I am a negative EV player.

If I am going to commit to this being a serious hobby, I plan to buy access to solver solutions and outline a study plan. I play a fairly tight pre-flop RFI range with a 3-bet or fold strategy unless on the BTN (against passive blinds) or BB. I have countless leaks post-flop and I think working with solver data will help me develop better post-flop heuristics.

I am just a bit fearful that I will invest this time and effort on a hobby just to become a mark at my local casino. I just won’t be able to put as much time and effort as some of the young kids and pros.

The game I have mostly been playing is $2/5 8-max max buy in $1000. I will play $1/3 max buy in $400 when I feel I am in the bottom half skill wise at the $2/5 table. Both games have 10% rake (max $5) with $3 jackpot drop (at $10,20 and $50). I strongly prefer the $2/5 game compared to the $1/3 dynamic. I am not trying to build up a bankroll, so I am not very interested in grinding at $1/3 unless you all think there is a lot of educational value in playing that game structure.

So do you all think a recreational player can become at least break even?

some of rec players are break even or small winners, a few even make good coin ... most don't care they play for other reasons win or lose

Yes. However, game (or possibly room) selection becomes more important.

I don't do anywhere near as much studying as you and I'm profitable in my occasional play. Keep records, analyze your sessions, and never play with money you can't afford to lose.

Also keep in mind that especially at 1-3 you'll be playing with people who are very loose and passive compared to the solvers. Be flexible.

I don't play NL, but I have had no problem winning as a very casual player with a job and a family, dropping in and out of poker over the years.

If you like to get intensely obsessive over your hobbies and the idea of paying for solvers and tutorials and whatever floats your boat, go for it. But I have never found that level of study necessary to win at 2/5 or 5/10 PLO, or 40/80 mixed games.

If you can't win without studying, maybe studying will help you win. Or maybe you're not cut out for it. Who knows?

with proper game selection an amateur can crush it

major reason why you get so many people showing up to the big game thinking they are going to be the next phil ivey because they have been crushing their weekly home game for 3 years

Agreed. My main motivation for poker is the competition aspect and the intellectual stimulation. Given the passive limpfest that is $1/3 I find it less enthralling.

On most days $2/5 is the biggest game in the room with the occasional $5/10 going off on weekends and big promotional events. The actual winning pros play in this game so I don’t want to be delusional about my own skill level. When I was last playing as a hobby I was profitable over about 200 hours but that was pre-COVID and I feel the game has evolved and that 200 hours isn’t an adequate sample size.

This is the exact reason for my post. Like most things in life, I feel that humans vastly overestimate their own poker abilities. I am fortunate in life to have discretionary funds to be adequately bankrolled at $5/10, but I don’t want to become the whale at the biggest games blinded by my own ego cursing variance as the reason I am down 30 buy ins.

If you study a little live is easy to win, but if you sit down at 5/10 and everyones a pro or solid reg, you are not going to win, just table select and play if table seems good, if you sit and can't spot the fish, its probably you

If you're asking about a very specific game the answer is "probably" because there's not much more to say without knowing those specifics.

If you're asking a general question the answer is an obvious "yes". The vast majority of people play in games that consist of 100% recreational players and unless rake is sky high somebody is going to win.

If you want to know if you could be a successful running back, the answer highly depends on if your talking about a game in the NFL or a peewee league against 8 year olds.

Fair point. I provided the rake structure above. It is a casino for which the highest consistent game is $2/5. On weekdays it is usually 1-2 tables during the day and 3 at night. Weekends usually 5-6 tables and $5/10 will have one table going usually starting around 8pm. The best players in the room play the $2/5 but I am not sure of the typical mix between pros/regs/recs. I am not sure if this helps you formulate a more specific answer or not.

Simple answer .. yes .. for all the reasons shown above and more ..

1) Table select if possible .. I'm not a big seat change guy, but that could play a factor if tables are limited.
2) Be able to recognize and avoid overplaying when OOP against a Pro

3) Don't ignore the value of 1/3 .. more hands and worse Players .. especially if the 2/5 has 2-3 strong Reg/Pro already seated.
4) (very tough for me) Be willing to leave .. up or down .. if the table is just not right (or drastically changes) for your style even though you planned on a longer session.

5) I think a Rec trying to squeeze rake evaluations into their profitability is going too deep. A $3 Promo Drop is insane unless those funds are readily available to return to your bankroll every session.
6) (really 3A) If you want (or feel stuck) playing a certain way .. AND .. aren't very good at piecing together the various stories that 3-4 different Player types are tossing at you at 1/3, then perhaps you do need to seek out 2/5. I know it's a supposed 'bad' poker mindset, but I've observed it enough .. Players at 2/5 will respect your betting lines much more so than 1/3. HOWEVER the flip side of that is that 2/5 Players will more likely see through your BS as well. Whereas a 'pot' bet on the River in 1/3 is much more likely to get through because it's 'so much' money and large bet River bluffing is much less common.

With what you have presented here you will quickly be able to determine if you are playing bad or running bad .. what you do with that information is the fine line between profit or loss. It's pretty rare for a poker session to not provide at least a few spots that are super comfortable. Some nights those spots just don't add to your stack and you have to avoid trying to make spots happen that just aren't there. The situational stealing spots are more available at 1/3 whereas you need to be willing to 'play poker' at 2/5 unless you're just going to sit there and wait for the best cards (in position).


How long are your sessions? I read a book quite a while ago and although this was a Pro 'talking' he said that his way of building a bankroll was starting out at 1/2 and building his stack to 3-4x then taking a seat (with profit) at 2/5 and doing the same. Then if he had enough time, he would sit at 5/10, again with profit, and take a shot that wouldn't damage the base bankroll too much. That may not be workable in your room with your schedule .. but I say again, don't ignore 1/3 as a bankroll building. While playing with the best Players in the room will give you a better challenge, it's probably going to be a slower and more variant method of showing more reliable profit. GL

I'm struggling to figure out why you think it might unlikely that a rec couldn't be profitable.

No, never. As soon as a recreational player becomes breakeven, they attend a graduation ceremony to promote to “reg” status. Then if or when they finally become profitable they attend another graduation ceremony to promote to “pro” status. Even Bill Gates has to go through this same track as poker is a meritocracy.

My sessions are generally 3-5 hours at night after the kids go to bed 9pm-1am on average maybe once or twice a week. I am trying to do some additional stuff to suck up to my wife to let me consistently play 3 sessions a week.

I do employ this method funny enough but it is rare given how short my sessions are. If the main game at $2/5 on a weekday night is full of killers I avoid it and only sit down for experience if I am “free rolling” with profits for that day.

My main motivation here is competition and intellectual stimulation. This may sounds a bit silly, but I’d rather be a break even player at $2/5 than a winning player at $1/3. I find the game much more interesting and challenging at $2/5. The total money that I win or lose on a given night at either stakes doesn’t really affect me much in terms of my real life finances. However, if I am consistently losing over time I imagine my wife will raise an eyebrow and shut down my fun times.

With the evolution of the game and GTO solvers I feel like rec players are not going to be as well studied as regulars and pros. The rake at $1/3 seems pretty tough to beat for a recreational player who might be more prone to “boredom tilt”. I generally am pretty disciplined but it is disheartening to fold for 3 hours straight when I know that is my only time I get to play poker for the next week or two.

How many "pros" and "regs" do you think are at the typical 1/3 table?
And about this - Have you thought about why if it's just recreational?

I feel very comfortable with my preflop game and in position play. At $2/5 I am very uncomfortable OOP as PFR. I am generally not calling a raise OOP unless I am closing action in BB. I am not comfortable in 3 and 4 bet pots at $2/5 especially on turn or river. I don’t ever feel uncomfortable at $1/3.

Typical $1/3 in my card room
0.5 pro
0.5 young kid who thinks they are a pro but are not
3 bad reg
1 good reg
3 recs

The $1/3 game typically consists of the following scenarios.
1. Multiple limps and I raise with strong linear value range.
- If multiple callers I play fairly straight forwards on flop and beyond and it becomes more of a game of bingo.
- If isolating I play pretty aggressively post flop and hope to outplay opponent
*** After a few times doing this the table turns on me for messing up their chances to high hand ***

If I was trying to do this as a side hustle I would stick with $1/3 and make a little bit of cash (assuming I can actually beat the game which who knows if I really can beat the game plus the rake long term). I think the game tree is a bit more complex and challenging at $2/5 which equals recreational fun times for me. With that said, I don’t want to be the whale paying for the pros’ future kids’ college fund because I think I am better than I actually am.

i've dipped my toes into low stakes live poker in usa#1 in recent years

they are the softest games i've ever played in my entire life

there are no "pros" at 1/3 and lower, those are reasonably good players grinding a barely living wage because they are too stupid to see the big picture and udnerstand how terrible a decision they are making

go check out 2p2's own el diesel vlog as "riceisaspoonfood" to see his series about grinding comps and occasionally sleeping in your car in order to live off the <25k he makes a year playing 1/3

here's el diesel explaining his "life hack" of preopening utensil packets


and here you can see his stats - he also cheats like hell, doesn't include breaks, bathroom trips, waiting for a seat, commuting between rooms etc - he'll spend an 8 hour day playing poker, switching tables and rooms etc but only count it as 5 hours - if we did a real accounting his earnings per hour would be even lower - he's also including all promos

Tell your wife that you're quitting poker and taking up golf .. perhaps you already do?

Let's see .. that's $2500 for clubs, $200 for shoes, gone 2-3 Sat/Sun a month for 6-8 hours at a time depending on drive .. maybe even 1-3 trips a year somewhere (I hear the course at the Wynn only costs $550 a round)

I like golf, but I've subbed golf for poker for the 'after dark' availability of it like you suggest .. and poker 'can' show a return whereas golf pretty much never has a return when it comes to the females in our life. The money and time are gone .. and they don't want to hear about your short game costing you 5 strokes. (Granted they don't want to hear about suck outs either)

You seem pretty locked in, and in control, of your poker goals and thoughts. But as suggested in this thread a few times, your two main goals conflict. If you choose the competition then your profit will most certainly suffer. Properly bankrolled 2/5 Pros will have no problem putting you in the blender 3-5 hands in a row from OOP or IP. While that does thrill me I'm not going into those games as comfortably as a 1/3 game .. just me. GL

Guys like this usually suck at poker and spend more time and energy on their video making etc. 1/3 games all over the USA are beatable by good players for a worthwhile win rate something like 20-50/hr depending on where in the country it varies a lot and I'm someone who has been everywhere Just about everywhere.. Then those good players move up or move on. Anyone legitimately good at poker finds a game they are making 35/hr or more. Those living the hobo 25k/yr life are just not good at the game.

yeah that's exactly my point, they move up

the "1/3 pros" are not pros in the slightest nor people you need to worry about at the tables

the handful of self declared pros i've met in my micro stakes live usa journey have all been laughably awful to where they were either lying or of the el diesel type above grinding out $8 an hour

You prefer playing recreationally in a game where you are often "uncomfortable" more than in one you never feel uncomfortable? This does not compute for me.