winning expectations in 'big bets/hour'

[strategem]

My first post here brought great results - the good advice has improved my poker playing a lot (I'm an absolute beginner, playing .50/1/00 at Paradise). Since reading Lee Jones, my equity levels have stabilized - i.e. I have become basically break-even over the past 5 or 6 sessions after losing for the first 5 or 6. I am still making PLENTY of mistakes, but learning every time. By the way, does everyone get the stuffing knocked out of them when they flop sets?? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

My question may be a little premature, but I'm an optimist. How many big bets an hour do experienced poker players anticipate earning? I know this must change from low limit to higher limit. I have been experiencing BIG equity swings in these very low-limit games - I know this is to be expected after reading WLLHE. I ask because I seem to be able to take 20 big bets out of that table in a few hours, or lose the same, with what I hope is tight-aggressive play - I think that this is unrealistic when one starts playing in higher limit games. Any comment will be appreciated. Nik

[travisand]

In B&M casinos pros expect to make 1 to 1.5 BB's and hour.

Online this figure can be higher because you are playing many more hands per hour.

My guesstimate for online would be between 2 and 3 BB's an hour assuming you play very well.

[strategem]

hi travisand

thanks for the reply. Interesting... I would have thought I was doing something wrong if I were making 3 big bets/hour.. I guess I have seen too many aggressive bettors making 20 Big Bets++ per hour. I'll go back to the tables with your guidelines in mind. Today I went from 20 to 34 in about two hours, then gave back about 8 and quit. Maybe I should think about getting back to my initial $100 a few dollars at a time. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

BTW, I know this is tough to answer, and I know that in Lee Jones quotes Sklansky (or Malmuth) as saying 'It's all one long session"... but - does anyone sit out for a moment and put some money away when they are up? Does anyone have a cashout guideline, i.e. up xx doallrs and quit that session? I ask because invariably, I am up more at the peak of my session than when I cash out. I'm sure the response will be - it all depends on the table, how you are feeling, etc.

[travisand]

The common answer is stay when you are playing your best game and the table is good and leave when you are not playing your best game or when the table is bad. And I happen to totally agree with this.

On the other hand, if you are starting with a relatively small bank roll I see nothing wrong with creating a set of stoppping standards, ie.-up or down a certain amount and then quit. By doing this you may have an easier time building your bankroll. However once you have a suffecient bankroll I would suggest not stopping because of a win/ loss amount of money.

When you stop at a certain amount of money you always ask yourself if you could have won more, which if the game is good and you are playing well could very easily be the case. While quitting the game because of your play or the texture of the table has gone bad you don't necessarily have these questions. You know that you started playing badly and there wasn't much of a chance of winning anymore, therefore you can get up and feel somewhat satisfied. I say "somewhat" because I believe it is hard to ever be satisfied unless I end up with all of the money. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif


Anyhow I hope this helps.

[strategem]

travisand

Actually, it helps a lot. What helps the most is to hear an experienced player say something like "you started playing badly and there wasn't much of a chance of winning anymore"... makes me feel a bit better about my bad decisions. I took your advice tonight - the table was good and I was playing well, so I stayed. Hard to believe some of the play at these tables. Just terrible. Thanks a lot for taking the time to give a detailed resposne. Nik

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I guess I have seen too many aggressive bettors making 20 Big Bets++ per hour

[/ QUOTE ]

This figure is only in the short-term (a few hours). It's common to get a good run of cards and win a lot in a very short amount of time. It's also common to get a run of second-best hands and lose a lot in a very short amount of time.

In the long run (thousands of hours), you will rarely find anyone making even 3 BB/hr.

[strategem]

hi pudley4

That's encouraging - thanks for the info.

I need to ask anyone reading this - I have been downloading my hand histories and I have realized that I don't quite understand the betting patterns of certain players, and I think it's due to an incomplete understanding of the concept of 'betting draws for value'. I say this having just come from a session where I think I saw it being done. Jones says a bit about it, but I have a few questions. Would it be possible for me to post a few hands for your analysis? Perhaps I should start a new thread so that the request is seen by as many potential analysts as possible. Thanks, Nikku

[ZManODS]

I seem to be able to take 20 big bets out of that table in a few hours, or lose the same

Seems like loose agressive to me, with that type of play you will experience huge swings in variance.

[pudley4]

Post as many hands as you want. It's best to post them in the small-stakes forum. You'll get more (and better) responses there. Make sure you put the results in a separate post /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Fitz]

Welcome to our dysfunctional little family; it's always nice to have new players amoung us.

I'd like to address some of your questions. First, big bets an hour. I don't think any winning margin over 1 to 1 1/2 big bets an hour is relaistic. You have to understand, the long term is a long time. I've had good runs of 100 to 150 hours where I've averaged 6 or 8 big bets an hour. I'm currently in a 90 hour losing streak where I'm averaging losing almost 4 bb an hour. Over the 1500 hours I've got in my database, my average is just over 1 bb an hour mostly at 2/4 and 3/6 on Paradise.

As far as value betting draws, it might be something like this, you hold AKd and the flop comes 8d 4d 2c; you are approximately a 2 to 1 dog to hit your flush by the river plus the extra outs provided if you hit an A or K. If you are in late position, and there are a bet and 3 callers to you, you should raise. You are making money on every dollar that goes into the pot. Do you see why? If you are better than 2 to 1 to hit, and you are getting 4 to 1 you are getting a big overlay. This is just an example, and there are many other situations like this; any time you are getting paid better odds by the pot than the odds against hitting your hand, you have a positive situation. Of course, this type of value betting will affect your variance, but that is another issue.

Post all the hands you like; as another poster said, the small stakes forum is the best place for this. One interesting thing about posting hands that I have found is that to post a hand accurately and completely, you must go through the hand and action thuroughly, and this can often offer great enlightenment about your play. The feedback you get from some of the better players here is invaluable.

Good luck,

[strategem]

Fitz

I have to tell you - the first paragraph of your post (re:cold streak) really got my attention, and is probably the most valuable thing I have read here so far. I was really beginning to wonder. I KNOW I am still making mistakes, but I am not making THAT many, and some of the streaks of pocket cards, flops and beats I have been experiencing, especially in the past 72 hours... well, it was really making me wonder. However, if you have experienced an even longer cold streak, it puts things in perspective a bit.

What I wouldn't give to have you cornered so that I could pick your brains about specific situations!! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I will take your advice and post some hands here.

Your explanation of betting for value is clear and explains some of the action I have seen.

re: variance... yes, my equity has undergone some fluctuations... regrettably, I have now varied my bankroll clear down to $0! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif So, that's from 100 to 5... then wise up and buy Lee Jones WLLHE.. then to 70, then down bouncing around 40 for a long while, then to 60 and then down to 10 in two sessions, and I mean FAST. Then a day or two off, then down to 0 in 1 long session, during which I was trying to go back to the ultra-tight play which seemed to stem the initial tide of losses. Going back to $70 after reading Jones had me thinking that everything was going to be fine /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I have no problem buying in again - I just want to make sure that there isn't something clearly wrong with the style of play I'm trying to implement. Too bad there's no substitute for playing - I really wonder if reading another book will help.

BTW, it has been pointed out to me that 100 big bets isn't too much of a cushion. When I get back to it, I will be buying in with at least twice this amount. Still... it gets me that I could get from 5 to 70 by getting smart about my play, then go all the way back down.

It's not the money, you know? Far from it. It's the inability to master something. Not used to it...but your comments have at least planted the seed of a doubt in my mind - perhaps it is just a cold streak right at the beginning of my career... you can imagine - I am a bit of a skeptic and this sounds a bit suspicious - if someone claimed this as the reason they blew out as a beginner, I might think.. "Hmmm... or was it your play?"

Your post was one of the best replies I got. Thanks, and... "I'll be back"... (To be delivered in the voice of Arnold Schwarzeneggar)

Take care

[strategem]

thanks pudley...appreciate the encouragement. I will definitely post some of my losers and some of the winners to see if the betting patterns are correct.

[strategem]

ZmanODS

Yes... see me reply to Fitz re: the current state of my equity variance:) It was indeed huge.

These are the kinds of swings I was experiencing at .50/1.00, and I thought it was normal, since I see one or two players at each session making even more than this - I track the equity levels of those at the table and $30-40 winners in 2-3 hours are not at all uncommon. Most losers lose less - they seem to be the ones that come to the table with i.e. $8 or $11, and hang around for an hour or so - they always win one or two but give it all back.

[rigoletto]

Hi stratagem

Hang in there! I started out like you did: won a little, lost a lot, bought a book, won some, lost it again, started reading this forum etc. This was a little over a year ago. I've gotten very far in that year and recently moved up to playing 5-10 online (and doing ok so far).

Some advice:

you should realize that some 0.5/1 Paradise players are actually quite good. Use the notes option and make notes on the regulars, so you know who you are dealing with.

Playing a 'by the book' tight agressive solid game might not be the best style at the microlimits. For loose passive (or semipassive) games you might want to loosen up yourself. When I played the micros I found the starting hand suggestions at this site helpfull lowlimitholdem (http://www.lowlimitholdem.com/) .

Don't just memorize starting hands, what to defend with in the blinds etc. It's ok to have some guidelines to follow and maybe follow them rigorously as you learn. But allways remember that poker is a very dynamic game. every table has it's own texture and even at the same table two identical hands can be played very differently depending on the sitiation (i.e. how many players are in, who is in, what happened the last few hands etc.). Don't sweat it, you'll learn to take all these things into account as you get more hours under your belt.

Fokus on one game! It looks like you've started out by playing fuld table Texas Hold'em ring games, stay with that. Don't try out short handed (the 5 max tables), no limit or other games like Omaha or Stud, until you think you master Hold'em. These games are played very differntly, even shorthanded and no limit Hold'em are a whole other story then full ring table Hold'em.

Good luck

[strategem]

Hi rigoletto
Sorry I missed responding to you - thanks for the advice and the encouragement. I wanted to let you know that I took a few weeks off, went back to the tables and this time, my account is going the other way! Not too many hours yet, but I can sense some changes in my style of play - mostly to do with understanding what kind of table I have sat down at, and reacting accordingly. It is also true that I have deviated slightly from the strict Lee Jones approach. The changes are hard to describe, but I feel different now. Also, I have realized that 100 hours is almost nothing, isn't it /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

I will be posting more hands at the small stakes boards and I hope you can find the time to do some analysis for me. Thanks again

[rigoletto]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Mason Malmuth's "Poker Essays" contains an essay entitled 'What You Can Make Playing Poker'

The gist is that the question is a bit more complex that a simple BB/hr number. A pro is not a pro is not a pro. The expected earn depends on how good you are in relation to your opposition and the stakes you're playing.

If you're *great* and playing 3/6, it's 2 BB/hr. If you're only *good* but are playing 50/100, it's 0.3 BB/hr.

It's an interesting article. To me it looks like the best hourly rate vs. risk of ruin is at 10/20.

[strategem]

Hi KurnsonofMogh

I saw Malmuth's 'Essays' on the bookshelf at my local store so I will check it out. I am still experiencing these wild swings in equity at the micro limits. I will be trying to bump at to the 1.00/2.00 tables (still micro I guess) to see what they are like. Recently, I have gone straight from $35 to $80 at the .25/.50 tables, and then straight back down to $45. I was playing every day and doing well... then I took a week off, came back to the tables and lost quickly. Probably not too surprising. Anyway, I will have a clearer idea of my BB/Hour stats soon since I have started writing down my hours of play at the tables. So far it seems like it's right at 1BB/hour. Again, though, the sample is not even close to being big enough. Thanks a lot for the responding.

[SunTzu68]

I don't have complete information, however...I would recommend examining your starting hands and becoming more selective with your preflop play and postflop play. Your swings sound very big to me.

[strategem]

Yes, I agree - the big downswing was caused by some loose play, but also by the fact that I sat down at a 6 seat table and I think that a slightly different style of play is necessary at this kind of table. I thought I had seen aggressive play at the regular 10 position tables... nothing compared to this. People tend to stay in till the very end just raising every round and I got killed like that a few times. Then I tried that style, especially heads up (bad idea) and got killed again. Thanks for your reply - I am back to the 10 position tables and the slow grind.

[Nottom]

Your story seems a lot like mine. I started playing a couple months ago, and bought in for $100 without knowing all I should have and lost it all pretty quickly. I bought WLLHE and Sklansky's HEP and took my new found knowledge back to the tables, and found my self doing well and decided to move up in stakes long before I was ready and busted out again. So I went back and re-read my books, picked up HEFAP, bought in one more time and told myself to stay away from the things that got me in trouble. No more playing at the NL tables and stay at the .25/.50 tables until I was consistantly beating the competition there. I stuck to my guns for a couple weeks and had some pretty good luck during that time and decided to try .5/1 did OK there and when I was back up to a reasonable bankroll I started in at 1/2 where I am now. I have settled in to this limit quite nicely and have managed to win back all my initial losses plus a bit more (after a total of $400 invested, I was down to as low as $50 at one point before turning it around and am currently sitting at around a $600 bankroll). With my current Bankroll, I have the 300BB most recommend is the right amount and plan on staying at 1/2 until I have at least a 200BB roll for the next level.


Just some info I have gathered during my journey so far:

The difference in play between the micro-limits (.25/.50 or .5/1) and the lowlimit (1/2, 2/4, 3/6)tables seems to be quite noticable. People IMO are in general much more predictable at the low limits than the micro and many of the techniques discussed in some of the poker books just don't work at all against micro-limit players ... you just have to make a better hand than them which starts by playing better cards and knowing when you are beat.

Shorthanded games are going to be much more aggressive ... I usually avoid sitting at the Headsup or 5-6 max tables, I don't feel comfortable playing aginst the people at these tables yet. On the other hand, if I am at a 10 seat table that just happens to be shorthanded, I can generally do very well, since these players often won't adjust to the new conditions.

Avoid the No limit tables. No Limit is a completely different beast, and requires a much different skill set. I consider this one of my leaks ... along with PL Omaha, although I think I'm starting to get pretty decent at O/8 ... and will generally only play if I had a particularly good night at my limit games and want to have a little fun.

Oh well, just some thought from a fellow noob. GL

[strategem]

hi nottom

Sorry for the delay in responding to your post. It's great to hear an encouraging story like yours. I have been doing better at UB... I am up on my original UB stake again, after having decided to avoid the 6 seat tables, at which I had won very fast to start with (Still down $140 from playing .50/1.00 at PP). I had thought 'Aha!! - here is the place where I can make money'... the truth is, I don't yet have the technique to handle the super aggressive play at those tables. So it is just as you said - stick to the 10 seat tables, follow my plan and try to build it up slowly. I was hoping to do as you have done, i.e. build a stake for 1/2 or 2/4 by playing at .50/1.00... there are a few others here who said that they did it and I have this thing about 'if he can do it then I goshdarn well can do it to'. This isn't the exact phrase I would use /forums/images/icons/smile.gif Anyway, I WANT to put some more $$ down and try the 1/2 tables - it would be great to play at tables that are just a LITTLE BIT calmer than the .25/50... maybe I'll swallow my pride and go for it. But I need to hone my technique a bit more first.

Anyway we'll see, but thanks for your input and the encouragement. I played a no-limit tournament today just for fun, no $$ buy in, only points which I accumulated by playing at UB... in a word, wow. A different beast? Yes, and you will get eaten alive if you don't know what you're doing, I can see that. I mean, how do you deal with it when a player pushes in his or her entire stake time after time in a 60/120 NL game?
Anyway, that's years away, so I will just watch for the time being. Take care