Quote:
Originally Posted by Y2Dennis
I've played live maybe four times but I've seen a lot of people claim higher winrates than that at $1/2. I've been thinking about scraping together a live bankroll and am just curious about live winrates.
I think I would be playing mostly just weekends and driving to A.C. so maybe I would be playing super soft tables all the time, but the fact that a year of poker live is only 28k hands is scary. I guess people could be winning at twice that clip but just running hot. And the people that really crush $1/2 prolly move up to $2/5 pretty quickly.
I don't even have a question I don't think.. just thanking for the info about the hours compared to the hands played. Definitely eye-opening.
This post sucked it was just ramblings, apologies.
WRT to the bolded part:
The thing you have to consider when playing live is the risk:reward. There is a tremendous difference between risk:reward in live v online. For instance:
To make $20/hr playing live you can play 200NL at the top-end of WR. Assuming you play with a 3BI stoploss, then you risk $600 to win $20. Now obviously you don't risk the full $600, but you get the drift.
To make $20/hr playing online you can play 50NL with a middle of the road WR (12 tables @ 52hands/hr/table, and RB included). For this you have say a 4BI stop loss, and then you risk $200 to win $20. Again, you dont' risk the full $200, but you get the idea.
Live, imo, should really be used more as a "profitable spend of time that is used for more than an hourly". For instance, I play live once or twice a month (during non-WSOP months) and do so mostly so I can make an hourly but also get some direct utility out of it (I enjoy the socialization coupled with +ev($) time spent). But playing 200NL live for an hourly is just the worst imo. 500NL live is the first level that I would consider playing seriously for a pure hourly, but even still, then you risk $1500 to win $35/hr...that sounds pretty horrible to me.
just my 2 cents