Things sort of slowed down at work as of late and I dabbled in poker for recreation more than anything so far, used to be a semi-regular back in 2015-ish playing mostly mid-stakes TAG strategy.
The field has changed, a lot of the formats seem to suck, so I'm sort of getting reacquainted. Started with low investment at NL25 fast fold (mostly GG even without a full HUD has a softer pool than Stars) If you do have recommendations of other rooms with good games, be my guest!
Anywho, the main question is how much on average are we looking at per limit? (6max cash is the preferred format here)
Very small sample size here and I have a **** ton of leaks to fix (floating too many flops, probably calling too many rivers with thin value, etc.) but I gleaned over the last 3600+/- hands and came up with an average of 7+ BB/100 for a total of 68$ won, and 70$ paid in rake, of which I ''supposedly'' make 50% back. Let's suppose that's all true, that would mean total winnings of 103$USD over 3600 hands. For the moment I am just 2-tabling a couple of nights a week for 1-2 hrs sessions, but let's assume I can A) fix the leaks and B) bring this up closer to 10BB/100 (seems realistic at these stakes) and C) ramp up the number of tables without losing too much focus / having the winrate suffer. I know, that's a lot of assumptions! But let's...
So 103$ / 3600 hands = 0.0286$ per hand, which if we ramp up to 500 hands / hr would mean something like 14.30$ / hr at current winrates NL25
I assume a better winrate would mean more winnings but less rakeback because you get out of pots earlier, disciplined folds and all, not sure how that would play out exactly.
Or let's assume that's as good as it's gonna get, is it fair to assume one is better to play the most volume at the limit where they break even at least gain it back in rakeback?
Is that the poker ecology nowadays?
Or is there a sort of cutoff? you just have to find the best middleground with your playstyle / player pool and site-dependant rakeback structure?
Let's forget about rakeback nonsense for a minute, starting from the assumption that there's a limit to the hands / hr you can play (and play well)
I put up 500 but your could be higher if you're a seasoned pro I am sure, but it's a benchmark.
Is my math sound that to make the equivalent of 10BB/100 @ NL25 you'd need to reach 25BB/100 @ NL10 or 5BB/100 @ NL50 or 2.5BB/100 @ NL100, etc.
so as long as you ladder up and your winnings are over those benchmarks in relationship to one another, you're good to go! (provided you're properly bankrolled obvs)
I'm getting long winded here, but I mostly want to know the relationship between limit / volume played / rakeback
and I guess volatility and variance as well, which has to be higher when you reach upper echelons whereas there are still plenty of fish @ low / mid
Graph for whatevs...