Big Bet Theory... Realistic???

Many authors and pros say that a good player should average 1 big bet an hour. Some top pros sat this is very tough to accomplish while others believe this should be the common standard. Let us take for instance, the 30-60 Hold'em Bellagio game, many pros play in this game, how many of these pros are averaging 1 big bet per hour? How many are averaging more? How many are averaging 1 small bet per hour? What is the common average for good players in this game? Curious to know where the true standard should be set for mid-high limit games. Are you averaging 1 big bet per hour. I sure many of us are interested in hearing your experience as well as your opinion on the subject. Thanks.

Everybody says Southern California is live, and just filled to the gills with yahoos with day jobs.


But I think I could make more money, and with less volatility, in Las Vegas. (Even considering the fact that pros owning cars should tend to equalize it.)


My general finding has been that, if I play full time for a living, I get enough information that I can predict when I will make 3 big bets per hour.


But, without being at the cardroom full time, I can't get the information, and the feel, and the player familiarity, to simply show up and collect only that 3BB and leave.


eLROY

A very good friend of mine plays 15-30 and 30-60 at the Bellagio. He is a well known pro there and makes a living playing poker. I asked him once how many people are making a living playing there. He says 95% of the players are losers over the long haul. This doesnt directly answer your question but it gives you some idea of how many people are actually making it. Also, and I wont mention any names, but some of the regular posters on this forum are losers in the long run and not making a living by playing poker but make their nut other ways. (according to him and this strictly has to do with the 15/30, 30/60 crowd at the Bellagio only).

"some of the regular posters on this forum are losers in the long run"


After all, regular posters to this forum are also regular readers of this forum. Moreover, if there is some leak in their game which is not mentioned, they can bring it up.


So how would you explain that someone who is both smart, and interested, would nevertheless choose to play where he cannot make a profit? Is it just a matter of game selection?


I do not deny that there is perhaps even a majority of people here who are long-term negative for ever having met the game of poker. But is it because a lack of skill?


Or is it because they'd rather have a random 30-60 outcome than a predictably unsatisfactory 3-6 outcome? In other words, what can downtime00 do to place himself into one group vs. the other?


eLROY

"What is the common average for good players in this game?"


It depends on how you define "good player" ?

A player who breaks even or better ? who makes 1+ sB/h or more, 1 BB/h or more ?


Apart from this comment I have no idea of the answers you are seeking.


Gatlif

good player as one who averages 1BB/Hr. at the game structure he's been playing for at least 2000 hours.


If he has played 10-20 for at least 2000 and is averaging 1BB/Hr.,he is a good player at the 10-20 game.


*************************************************

If he has been averging 30/Hr. after 2000 hours of play in a 30-60 game,he is NOT a good 30-60 player,but he IS a good 15-30 player.

Of course,I'm assuming that he beats the 15-30 for 1BB/Hr.(30.00/Hr.)


Happy pokering ,

Sitting Bull

you "define a good player as one who averages 1BB/Hr"


Let us define a very good player as one who averges 1.5BB/Hr or more. In this case, I suppose we can tell downtime00 that the average good player averages 1.2BB/Hr.


Noe thats usfull info ...


Gatlif