lol, nowhere near 40, be happy if you get 25

24 hours of grinding live poker, for 150-200 dollars?

That's an hourly of between 6 and 8 dollars per hour, but served with a huge scoop of variance. Why would you want to do that to yourself?

I mean, if it's just about the money, go work in McDonald's or wherever, for probably better money and zero variance in whether or not you get paid at the end of your shift.

And if it's not about the money, if it's purely for your own enjoyment, then just go ahead and do it, and it doesn't matter what hourly you can achieve

TT, read his containment thread for more information.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32...never-1585864/

35-40 is reasonable for limit. Moves much faster than NL.

yea well now i am winning at limit poker I AM a quick learner....so i guess i get the last laugh huh

Yea I hear ya but in about 3 years i will be retired....ummm lets see fishing 2 days a week...Then Poker 4 days a week to supplement a pension and Social security....well that works for me

Hmm, ok, that explains a bit, thanks, but surely someone who needs a containment thread, on what I assume is at least their second account, in BQ of all places, deserves ....... how can I put this....... a more robust form of containment?

Nevertheless, I'll give it one more go. Even if I'm probably wasting my time.

OK, so you reckon you've gone from beginner to confirmed crusher in a few weeks, in perhaps a sample of perhaps a few thousand hands maximum? Even if you're telling the truth about being in profit to a decent amount, at a decent hourly, there's got to be a significant chance that you've just run good over a small sample at the beginning, and are either a losing player, or at least not as winning as you think you are. Don't start laughing just yet

This may surprise you, but people who are near retirement can still work in McDonalds, or in a superstore, if they want to supplement their income with $200 for a part time position. And it will be more sociable than sitting in a casino trying to win a bit of money off deadbeats and degens, without the downside of sometimes leaving "work" with less money than you went with

This may surprise you, but people who are near retirement can still work in McDonalds, or in a superstore, if they want to supplement their income with $200 for a part time position. And it will be more sociable than sitting in a casino trying to win a bit of money off deadbeats and degens, without the downside of sometimes leaving "work" with less money than you went with[/QUOTE]

I can tell from the above that you view poker as a chore...ITS TIME FOR SOME ONE TO FIND A NEW HOBBY

As someone who just turned 65 (but has no intention of retiring for, oh, let's say 10 years), and has considered the same idea, here's the counter argument.

If it's just money...don't retire, part time work + SS won't be enough However, if part of the reason is to stay active and engaged, poker is a far better thing for cognitive health than Walmart.

Or, as an alternative, you could do a bit of both. 2 or 3 days of a part-time job, 2 or 3 days of poker each week.

Retirement sucks if you stagnate. But in my case, I like my job (and it pays pretty well), and I really do not feel like it's time to stop being part of the active roster.

I agree 100% There is a Big Difference between having to answer to people and being on a schudule compared to sitting around shooting the $#%^ and picking up some pocket change.
Yea this would be 85% to stay ingaged/have fun and 15% of extra money.
I mean between my social and pension I am not gonna live in the top 10% but I would be far from a charity case too.

I believe rake on a 3/6 limit game and a 5/10 limit game is both 10% ?
Is That correct ?
Also I have heard people say you can't overcome rake on a 2/4 limit game.
If its all 10% could you give me an example of Why that would be true ?
If its true at all ?

Also do you guys measure BB/H in terms of per 100 hands or in terms of hours ?

Last but not least are Big Blinds in the 2 to 3.5 range unrealistic or defintely obtainable by better players ?

1) Rake in a lot of rooms is 10% .. but it's capped at a max, usually $6.

2) When you play smaller stakes (2/4) the rake is a larger portion of the whole pot and thus will be harder 'to over come', yes.

3) You need to look at rake based on the average pot size, not necessarily just the % that is coming out. If the average 2/4 pot is $50, then the rake is $5 and 10%. If the average 3/6 pot is $80 then the rake is $6 (max) and thus 'only' 7.5% of the pot.

If the average pot in both games is less than $60, then the impact of the rake is the same ... making both games equally 'tough' to beat IMO.

3) BB/hour is normally the way that live players look at their results since it's difficult to actually count the number of hands played live. BB/100 is generally used online since a lot of players are involved in more than one game at a time and the stats are tracked for them.

4) I don't know what you are getting at with the 2 to 3.5 range? But 'better' live players will generate a net result of 12bb/hour. If lower, then more down in stake AND study harder. If higher, then consider moving up since you are 'crushing' your current stake. GL

Is there a bad beat jackpot? Is there a standard drop on the flop? Where I play there is $1 taken from every pot that sees a flop and $2 taken from every pot that sees a flop. Then they take $1 at $20, $1 at $40, and $1 at $60, then no more after that. It takes particularly bad opponents and very good play to beat this rake at 2/4, but 4/8 is beatable. Also, don't forget to factor in the $1 tip.

If instead there's no bad beat jackpot, and they just take $1 at $10, $1 at $20, etc, then maybe the game is a bit more beatable than where I play, but 10% is still a lot to overcome, especially with the $1 tip.

If they reduce the rake when the pot starts shorthanded, that's a much better situation. I've played 5 handed 4/8 for 1/2 rake, and I've played heads up 4/8 for $1 a hand rake, both of which were much better spots than 10% rake uncapped.

I use big bets per hour for tracking live limit play. To do otherwise would skew the results because at shorthanded tables, you're getting more than the normal share of hands per hour. When the table is full, you're playing less hands per hour.

I use big blinds per hour for tracking no limit live play.

@answer ok thanks understood and it makes sense about the rake.

As for you last sentence not sure I understand ?
you said 12/bb hour
so are you saying that if you are playing 3/6 limit then it would be 12 x 6 = 72 an hour
that just seems way way high for such a low limit game.

what I was getting at with the 2.5 to 3 range was this.
I was asking if 2.5 x 6 = 15 an hour is obtainable/realistic for a good player

Pretty sure Answer was talking about no limit. Fixed limit winrates typically top out around 1 big bet an hour in high raked games.

Bob is correct .. I'm not a limit player. In live 1/2 at 10bb/hour you are making $20. That is better than most 'jobs' and thus would be the target for 'better' players.

I have a friend who plays limit due to budget and 'impulse' restrictions he puts on himself. When we talk about the hands he loses I'm constantly telling him to 'Bet them out of the hand!!' .. but of course he can't since it's limit!!

I've had some success when playing limit while waiting for a seat in NL, but I applaud all the folks who can play that game on a regular basis. GL

well I am actually profitable at limit games But I suck at NL.
It drives me cray cray to play near flawless poker for 2 or 3 hours then end up rail side because I made TWO Moderate mistakes.
In limit if I am CONSISTENTLY Good it affords me a mistake here and there that is why i prefer it.
Then again if I am beating limit How do I make the transistion to NL
I seriously need to read a real good book about that or something like that.
How easy or hard are such transistions ?

Why would you want to transition to the game that's been analysed exponentially more than any other over the past ~15 years?

If you were beating limit, you wouldn't have started half of your threads.

@otatop when you think you know it all and stop asking questions Thats when you become full of yourself, and its the begining of the end.

@sixfour thats a pretty good question... but i am thinking there is probably more money in it

Sure, but there are also questions that can only be answered by the asker, like some of the ones in this thread's OP. Let me quote it to show you what I mean.
Rake is different for every room, so no one on here can tell you what your room rakes. This one should be answerable by yourself, because you say that you're beating limit. If you don't know if it's possible to beat the rake, how do you know you beat the game? Live games use big bets per hour, online uses per 100. They might be obtainable by absolute crushers, but 1 big bet per hour has been the "goal" winrate for decades, for lack of a better term.

@otap becaise i jump back and forth between 6/3 and 2/4 limit so maybe i am even at 2/4......i didn't keep exact records for each THATS Why

I think the most important takeaway here is that if the low limits at your casino are beatable, they're not beatable for much. If you just enjoy the leisure activity of playing poker, then you're not going to get hurt playing 2/4 or 3/6. However, if you're beating those limits and you can spare a few buyins, my suggestion is to move up to the next level as soon as possible, whether it be 4/8 , 5/10, or 6/12. The rake will likely be much more beatable there and you'll probably enjoy yourself just as much, perhaps even more.

Then you can throw a steak party with your winnings and invite all of us.

Just had a session as follows.
0 and 4 WITH pre flop pairs 8 or better
0 and 5 four to a flush pre turn
1 and 7 AK, AQs and AJs pre flop

TEXT Book example of varience