The typical credo states that live 1/2 NL is supposed to be easier to beat than the typical 0.10/0.25 NL game online, but I'm getting a much higher WR/hour at live play this year than I am in online play.

Should be it be sustainable (over 100+ hours) to beat 1/2 NL for >15 BB/hr? My gut tells me that I haven't quite hit the other side of variance yet (what's an acceptable variance equivalent for live play? 250 hours for 10000 hands?)

Are my opponents *that* bad?

Thirty dollars per hour in a 1/2 NL game; that's a pretty strong win rate.

Look at it this way. The casino drops/collects/rakes about $90 to $140 per hour (let's say it's $120). If there are two similarly skilled opponents in the game the remaining seven seats need to be filed by players willing to lose about $30 per hour on average in what amounts to a tiny game. How long do you expect the games to stay this good?

~ Rick

So what's the problem? You expected an easier game in 1/2 NL live and you're getting a higher WR at live than online. I'm confused.
Yes.

I'm confused too. This statement makes no sense.

$30/hr - probably not. There's some variance to still hit you. $15/hr is reasonable though.

Take this post with a grain of salt, as I'm not disagreeing that live players play poorly. However, the 2p2 online obsession with complimenting online multitablers should cease. Trust me, I play mostly live and have seen absurd play, but it's not all that different from the stupidity I see in online play. You guys can insult live players all you want but I could easily drum up any number of obscenely bad Stars/Party etc HH's to show that arguments such as 1/2 NL live = .10-.25 NL online are garbage.

As to the original question, it would be tough but not impossible to sustain a winrate as high as the one posted. some games play pretty deep stacked and are loose/juicy enough to guarantee sizable pots to counteract the rake.

In my experience, 1-2 can probably be beat up to 20-25 an hour given typical tables. If you are really game selective it may be higher. I have noticed lately though a slight tightening of the tables. If the newbies start to wise up or go broke, your win rate will obviously drop.

Here are some other opinions: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

I would agree with this. $20-25 is possible if you are a very good player and can maximize profits every hand. However, if this is the case you should be playing $2/5 or $5/10 if it is offered. If you are an above average player I'd say $15-20 is more realistic.

FWIW, I prefer to play $2/5 but my local casino only offers $1/2. I played about 25 sessions there over the summer and my winrate was $22.50/hour.

I played a 5 hr session (+/- a 1/2 hour) the other day at 1/2nl & made approximately $220. So I averaged $40-45 per hour.

no i had the best session at the 1/2

I think $30/hr is sustainable if you only play Friday and Saturday nights, when half the table is drunk and doesn't know the rules.

I play live 2/3 NL and 5/5 NL, and average $23/hr over 200+ total hours of play this year.

I recently spoke to a regular player who plays about 40+ hours a week at live 2/3 NL and 5/5 NL, and he said that he makes about $17/hr, but that the swings can be pretty severe some weeks (up, as well as down).

IMO, a win rate of only $17/hr is too much of a grind for a 40 hr week. That rate just playing weekends would be ok though.

No, the other day I bought in for $100 and doubled up on the first hand. $100 in five minutes is a $1200 per hour win rate.

My best "first hand" ever. I sit down and call for chips, a couple limpers to me in MP, I spy two Jacks and make it $20, folds to big blind who makes it $60. I say "well, I guess I'll double up or go home, all in." Chip runner pick up my $200 and leaves to get the chips. BB thinks forever, but finally makes the call and shows me kings. When the chip runner returns with my chips I point out who he should give them to and ask for $200 more.

I think that guy played maybe 3 more hands in the next 5 hours. Possibly a bigger nit than me. *sigh*

I have a similar story except mine were aces, his were deuces, flopped a deuce, and I just went home without even getting the seat warm.

and i thought i was the only person to go to that casino with a single buy-in

I had more than one but I took it as a sign that I shouldn't gamble any more that day.