just play the best tables...period.

Yeah, sometimes people really just over complicate stuff.

I calculate that out to 3pt/100 which seems well above middle of the road to me.

As for the risk/reward statement, seems odd in that if you are properly bankrolled for both the risk seems the same and the variance should be less live because your winrate is higher.

Agree on the cap of $20-25/hr. But can't wrap my mind around the risk/reward thinking here.

Obv. tho you make a point that someone can get to an equivalent hourly with a smaller bankroll online.

There is a problem with that in my mind however, in that playing 12 tables online will be harder for many people than playing one insofar as "I am going play eight hours a day". Maybe not the majority, I dunno, but playing live gets you out of the house.

In either case, its a damn grind imo.

I just don't get that live is a greatly worse option. If you look at the trend online has gotten harder over the last 5 years at a much greater pace than live has and I expect that to continue.

So did I calculate that win rate right?

I guess you can tell I was a live player before personal computers were on the market.

Also, another thing that should be factored in is comps. Picking my spots I can travel and use comps to pay for the bulk of my expenses. So there is additional utility there.


Finally, putting the stop loss aside, live I am going to have $200 in play at my one table, online I will have $600 over twelve. So it escapes me what you are trying to say exactly tho its obv. you are a very smart dude.

So I've seen split and others mention multiple times that you can expect 50nl wr = 75% of 25nl wr.

Any similar such WR comparisons between 100nl and 50nl WRs? According to my calculations I can manage an equivalent hourly between the two levels if I can manage to win at 57% of my 50nl WR at 100nl

If you play long enough at nl100 your WR should become higher than your 50 WR at some point theoretically

I'm all about the short-term

Do you guys think it's possible to sustain a 4ptbb/100 WR at 50nl while 24 tabling? And I don't mean with ridiculous amount of table selection/starting tables either, I just mean joining any waitlists that aren't reg infested and getting up 24 tables like that.

imo, there are like 5 ppl that could do this. so not, not very likely to be able to sustain that kind of WR with that kind of volume

If you are able to pull 4pt 24-tabling 50NL over big samples, you should move up, imo.

1.) RB > comps with any sort of volume. Most rooms I play at in Vegas are $1hr. The highest comp rate I've ever received FOR JUST POKER was $5/hr...and I'm pretty sure that is the highest I had ever seen

2.) $ needed for $ made is entirely off for live v online. Your point about $600 on 12 tables v $200 on 1 table isn't really real. Because anyone with any sort of BRM isn't going to sit their BR on all tables. It boils down to stop losses. Again, even using a 5BI stoploss at 50NL is $250 to make $20/hr online, and at 2BI it is $400 to win $20/hr live. I mean hell, if you want to boil it down to the standard "20BI rule"...you need $2K to make $20/hr live (and again, $20/hr isn't even going to be the standard WR for most) and $1K to make $20/hr playing online...Once you get down to your real WR at live, which might just be something like $12/hr, you can make that in RB alone at 50NL...or even by playing a mediocre WR at 25NL, which then would lower your money needed to like $500, versus the necessary $2K for live. See where this going?

3.) Where is the variance going to be crazier? A game that you see 30 hands/hr? Or a game that you see 500 hands/hr? Seeing almost 17x more hands/hr will make that WR converge faster, and thus the results more real (mind you, I am talking about the commonly accepted notion of variance (aka, how the swongs feel and look)...not the mathematical one).

RB included in that 100NL hourly?

yea

I usually tell ppl that are going to move up/shot it aggressively to expect a 50% drop in WR from 50NL to 100NL off the bat...assuming they do the standard "IM GOING TO MOVE UP AND FREAK OUT!!!!" thing. (I expect normal WR at 100NL to be ~75% once you adjust and are used to the level)

So if you can withstand the feeling of bigger swings, and feel you can adjust quickly, then by all means shot it. It took me about 6 times (give or take) to finally make 100NL my home when I was shotting...for some odd reason I kept adjusting to what I felt the game would play like, not what it actually played like (if that makes sense). If you can play 100NL, move fluidly between levels if need be, and keep a learner's attitude while doing so...I think its a solid idea imo

Wow this post is probably is exactly what I want to hear. It's incredible how reassuring it is to hear an experienced player/coach say that I just took a shot at 100nl for the first time ever last week, played 10k hands there and didn't do too well. I think the underlined sentence summed up exactly why I didn't do well, thank you! (f regs don't fold JJ as overpairs in 3bet pots)

you'll get it. just don't force it =)

just out of curiosty Split, how many shots at a higher level is to be expected normal before making it stick? (assuming correct BRM and yea, I know this can be very, very unique for everyone).
All this roughly speaking. As in, at how many failed shots should I step back and say, wtf is wrong with my game going from A level to B level that I cant make it?

too unique to answer imo.

I dunno...most ppl wouldn't shottake 6 times in 4 months...so hell if I know =)

Hrm. i think next shot I take will be, I open my normal amount of tables at normal level and then scan the new level for known fish and just sit at 1 table with the known fish. After awhile of making sure my game doesnt change, close 1 of the old level tables and find another table at the new level with another known fish to me right. Step 1. Rinse. Step 2. Repeat. Step 4.Profit.

+1111111111111111

This is exactly whay happened to me. I did some crazy moves I would never have done at 50nl. I did ok in last 20k hands but I am down 5BI so I think I have to move back down for a bit. Glad I'm not the only one going through this.

It all depends on how long it takes you to not care when you lose a BI at the next level. I know for me, the first few times I shotted 100 and lost a stack I was like, 'jesus, there goes a hundy.' which was definitely the wrong attitude. It's the same game, you just gotta get accustomed to swinging a lot more $$ wise (maybe BI wise too). Also, how well you're rolled helps.

I've been 4-tabling 50NL Rush almost exclusively for the past week or so since it's way easier to start and end a session compared to 16-tabling. Anyway, I was just wondering if anybody thinks that there's any difference in possible winrate at 4-tabling Rush compared to 16-tabling regular tables?

I would imagine your rush w/r could be a bit higher because of the tendency of stacks to get pretty deep. (I'm assuming the hands/hr is similar for 4rush or 16reg tables?)

Yeah, I usually get ~1050 hands/hr when 16-tabling or 4-tabling Rush.

^^ this..

i've won at least 3 pots <600bb +