IF you only have 130K hands total, then you most likely don't have enough of a sample size on any one individual opponent

You are right that he doesn't get too out of line and is TAG. His postflop aggression is absurdly high, but he doesn't call down light too often. I have him as a loser, but he's probably a winner.

if someone is logging a ton of hands at 50-100NL, it's likely because they aren't very good. players that beat these levels move up to midstakes rather quickly.

they could be rakeback players...who are soo damn annoying to play with

could be the fact that 30/60 doesn't run too often and there's always a 8/16 game going.

he'd be smarter to start games at his level if he can afford it but he could be busted up a bit. you never know. nadremark is a competent player.

i go to the casino and see a 20/40 reg sitting in a high limit rotation game. and i've seen 150/300 regular sit in a 15/30 game while waiting for a seat.

i think stevesbet is chasing SNE..but not sure..

I think this is a natural consequence of the fact that you only take stats of the tables where you're playing. Your opponents will be making profit at other tables where you aren't sitting (which, by definition, contain more fish on average).

Also what sort of sample sizes are we talking about here? (e.g. in my DB, striker is at -10bb/100 from 1K hands - but I consider him the best player at my levels and I'm sure his actual winrate is far in the green).

maybe u table select really well?

Try looking @ a LO8 database. I always seem to find that most everyone is losing.

Out of 33k hands since nov 15th I feel like I'm killing the games my pto has me at 1.6 bbs/100 and the biggest winner over 1000 hands played with has a 2.3 bb/100 win rate.
As a limit player I see a graph where someone has 11/100 win rate in any form of poker makes me sad, angry maybe both.

In the first 36 days of this year I have played 38.3K hands of .5/1 to 5/10 full ring and 6-max (part of the "Prove lo stakes FLO8 is beatable" quest).

To start off February I'm on a 150BB downswing at 3/6 so that is skewing my #'s a bit, but that included I am running .08BB/100. Un impressive. Without including the fabulous start of this month I'm closer to 2BB/100 so far this year. I'm guessing by the end of February I'll have 100k or more LO8 hands played and I'll give an update as to my personal winability at these limits. The rake is brutal - that is for sure. I've paid $8500 in rake this month so far on a total of 71K hands FL, PL, NL up to 5/10.

I still believe 100% that you can beat lo stakes FLO8 for at least 2BB/100 - I am always playing 9tables so I imagine if I were playing 3-4 my winrate would go up a decent click.

Would you be able to post your New VPP/hand for each level? (HEM 1.10 has that as a stat option in the reports).

hoping not to BUMP (sidetrack) the thread but.

is that $8500 figure right??
@71,000 hands it works out to nearly $12/100hands (which is quite a few bbs) which doesn't seem right. a confirmation that the figure is correct, as your share of rake paid, would be if you've gotten nearly $2300 rakeback. (i don't want to discuss your financials really in a thread, especially this thread, but the figures 'didn't look right' to me.)

10-15 bb/100 sounds about right for rake. For example, at PLO8 50 this year I have played 7502 hands and paid $496.23 in rake, which comes out to 13.22 bb/100.

If you hadn't thought about this already; it can be instinctive to think that someone beating the game for 10bb/100 is ten times as good as someone making 1bb/100; but if you allow for the rake then it is really about 20bb/100 vs 11bb/100.

I rarely play Stars. I thought if I switched to Stars this year I would be too tempted to try for SNE and avoid other obligations. I think I could easily achieve SNE at Stars playing 1/2-10/20 LO8.

Those are the stats PT3 has for me. Sounds brutal - so looks right to me! I usually get anywhere from 300-500 a week in RB at FTP when I'm grinding a good volume.

has there ever been a SNE exclusive O8 player? i think you would be the first

Its possible, barely. Certainly not easy for anyone.

Not always true. Someone who multitables .5/1 and can make $10/h/table might not mind making $100/hour.

Before 2010 started I looked into doing this - it's not really that challenging for someone who 9-tables or more at least 1/2 or higher, especially if playing a lot of 3/6 up to mid-stakes.

If I played 8 hrs/day 6 days a week I'd log something like 130K hands/month and that is not a very tough schedule to keep and I think thats plenty to make SNE? Someone I'm sure could use one of the VPP calculators to figure it out. I've played 17.4k hands so far this month and haven't played at all today (the 5th). I imagine I'll play another 1-3K hands today, so I'm averaging 3-4K hands a day right now and it doesn't take up all my time and I do it in (2-3) 2-3 hour sessions w/o any real problems. I play basketball for 90 minutes at lunch or go running each day and then do a 30-60 minute core workout with my kids after school, usually make them dinner and watch a TV show or 2 with my wife at night.

I average like 75 hands/hr/table playing 6-max FL. Figuring in some vacation time etc., I'd guess you can easily do a relaxed 1.2mil hands in a year. Is that enough? If not you could easily do 7 days a week - 50 weeks a year, 7 days a week, 8 hrs a day, 675 hands/hr. = 1.9mil hands.

While I don't suggest this would be entirely fun or healthy or lead to a good lifestyle, it's not really that bad if you look at it. Plenty of people work 50-60 hour work weeks and more, in front of a computer or stuck in an office. I think if I didn't have two kids and a hobby that takes up a lot of my time part of the year I would attempt SNE with O8.

Good point. I've sustained 5+PTBB/100 over a good stretch now at PL100 while 9tabling. I think at PL games I'm getting like 65 hands/hour. 65*9=585/100=5.85*1*5=29.25/hr. and don't forget to add in RB as well. At the current pace I'm playing I'm getting close to 600/week.

1.2 mil hands will get you a little over half way, if you have some 3/6 in there. (Depends too much obv on the exact make up of games obv). Maybe it'd get you close, but never more then 75% of the way I wouldnt think.

If you think that's easy, then ok, its easy. That sounds insanely hard to me. If you had just 2 extra weeks off becuase of unforeseen circumstances, you'd need to put in 10 hours a day for a month just to catch up. Playing every day. Sounds close to impossible to me.

If you were willing to throw game selection out the window, maintain a perfect routine where you're always online during peak hours and never in the middle of the night, never get sick or have any life obligations, play both 6max and FR, limit and PL, and were completely insane, I could see it happening...maybe.

There are lots of issues...first off people play really suboptimally (usually w/o realizing it) when putting in that kind of volume. If you miss one day you're immediately 8 hours off pace--GL playing a 16 hour day to make up for it the next day. I really think it's one of those things that sounds a lot easier than it is, which is why people try and fail all the time. You also feel like you're just "running bad" because you get so numb to every hand that you only remember the big losses and not all the little pots where you missed value or made a bad river call.

I know Borys made it, but he played a lot of fairly high limit turbo NLHE SNGs and short-stacked 6m NLHE and maybe even had some PLO thrown in. You need a high bankroll, a lot of talent, the ability to play multiple games, extreme discipline, and a lot of free time.

Also, the games are so dry these days that it's that much harder to mass-table with a decent winrate. You'd pretty much have to throw winrate out the window too.

I don't know, maybe I'm pessimistic, but I've had some super high volume months where I still came nowhere near a one-month pace for SNE. If there is ever another poker boom, I may try it, but under current game conditions there's no way I would even consider it.