Ugh. *sigh*

Read the rest of the post.

I know that.

You failed to communicate that understanding in your post, that's on you, so if you feel the need to be huffy about it, go look in a mirror while you sigh.

lol.

Well of course I "failed to communicate that understanding" in my post if you didn't actually read the post. Although that much said, not quite sure how you missed the first sentence too and just got the second one. Maybe you were being picky?

Aaaannnnyway. Water under the bridge. And I'm not claiming to be "right" here. Just throwing my 2c in the ring. I'm not yet convinced that "crushers" are making 2-5 bb/100 at 25NL (although I'd certainly regard 5bb/100 as a solid winner, just not a crusher).

25NL is microstakes (2NL-50NL), I've been talking about small stakes (100NL-200NL). I haven't played 25NL recently, but I'd expect the best players to be making 8-10bb/100 pre-RB.

Fair enough. You did actually say starting at 50NL.

I'm still genuinely surprised to hear it though. But I guess making $15K over a million hands isn't anything to sneeze at for a hobby.

Yeah, I mean, let's say you play 800 hph, and you win 1.5bb/100 pre-RB at 100NL. You'll probably get another 2bb/100 on top of that in RB if you play full-time. You're earning $28/hour which is definitely not to be sniffed at.

FWIW,

My last 30k hands I am sitting at 5.2bb/100 in the NL5z pool. I don't view myself as superbly good and that has been quite a bit of run good.

Yes, I see what you guys are saying.

Going to get a bit off topic here (semi) ...

Personally I hate Zoom poker (as soon as I switched my win-rate improved dramatically). I get the feeling there's way too many multi-tabling regs just mashing the fold button until they get in a good spot. Also, for obvious reasons it kind of kills the "table dynamics" which is one thing I like about playing Poker. Point being, I won't be playing 800 hands an hour anytime soon. For now still actually playing a single table at 25NL until I feel I can beat it. Then I might play two.

... anyway, so this is how this post relates to the OP ... I wonder how much win rates differ between guys who multi-table Zoom poker and guys who play 1 or perhaps 2 regular tables.

Personally, if it's possible (and this thread is making me doubt that it is), my goal in poker would be to be able to make some nice "pocket money" playing only one table at a time. Max two. I just don't see the fun/point if you have to go into robot-mode smashing buttons on 10 tables at once. I'd much prefer to single-table higher stakes than multi/zoom-table small/micro stakes. Dunno how realistic a goal that is though. I guess some people must do it.

edit: part of this reasoning is that I play a lot live at the local casino too, and I want to improve my game in that context too.

^^^tbh once you get used to the game, multitabling isn't really a disadvantage because for most spots you'll know how you play your ranges and you're not really going to be able to change that coherently within the 90 seconds or whatever you get max per decision.

No one made 8bb/100 at FR 25/50/100 last year. Maybe on or two people made 7bb and another dozen or so made 6bb.

Full ring 100NL on Stars looks like a great money-making opportunity. (Not really).

Biggest winners in last few years:



4 million hands at 1.6bb/100 sounds like torture to me, but Melea's actually played closer to 20 million lifetime.

would be very very surprised if caaal_meee! had that true winrate or anything close to it now, he's been extremely mediocre when I've played him at 6 max.

So the top yearly 100NL crusher makes at least $90K per annum and only has to play 33K+ hands per week? Sounds like a dream job.

Wow, that's pretty depressing.

What's the site that you get those stats from?

Yes, it is depressing reading for sure, but very informative. I'd like to look at the other limits too.

See, I told you winrates that are spouted on 2+2 are grossly over-exaggerated. But people don't listen. They prefer to live in some fantasy world that 8bb/100 at 100nl in 2016 is actually possible to achieve. When clearly it isn't.

In fairness, I have no doubt that otb or similar would be able to achieve 8bb/100 at 100 by simply destroying everything in sight (or indeed, probably any midstakes crusher) - but these players are very much in the top 0.1% of regulars (not just poker players).

Again I'd be curious to look at the site if anyone knows what it is...

SpinMe ... yes mate you were right. Wallow in it.

whotfru.info is the site

Wait... is that table showing 9-man REGULAR cash tables? If so that is sick amount of hands to play :S I thought you guys were talking about zoom.

Also if those are regular tables with 9 players with so many hands played, which requires playing a lot of tables at once, that should mean playing 6-max the winrate should be higher.
So I can see there are 5bb/100 and also one guy has 6.9bb/100!, playing in 6max with fewer tables they should be higher. So the high winrates don't seem to be that crazy to achieve if you are good after all, or am I wrong?

last post is like 9 months old, but I'm still curious...

Damn, did not notice that XD. I'm not really that forum savvy.

With rake at 100NL with previous SN(E) I'm pretty sure you can just about double some of those low winrate numbers in the list. It isn't called rakeback pro for nothing.

Yes. Some of those guys were playing up to 20 tables for several hours a day. I think a lot of them have switched to (or added) 6-max and Zoom into their schedules, as FR games have really dried up.

In the short run, you can still make a lot at 100NL 6-max, but the downside is you apparently have to have ginger hair to get the rungood.