This question has plagued me for some time (Re: 1 BB/hr)

[huzitup2]

I am willing to accept the fact that a "very good" 10/20 - 15/30 player will seldom be able to NET more than 1 big bet per hour after both the rake (or time charge) and tips are deducted.

"GFAL" states that a "world class" player who places a high emphasis on game selection MIGHT come close to - or even exceed - 2 BB/hour at these limits; I accept this as well.

Let us assume for the sake of discussion, that I am a very good (bordering on excellent) player but due to financial considerations is [currently] unable to play bigger than 10-20.

If I am game selective - this includes being willing to sit in a smaller game if it is a great game but the 10/20 is, at the moment, not very good - it would seem that I should be able to average 1.5 BB/hour (or at least very close to it).

O.K. then, my question is this. . .

*

If I were to play 3-6 (making the required adjustments I'd need to play in a very loose game - I'm able to make these adjustments easily because I am a very good/excellent player, remember /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif ) it would seem that I ought to be able to earn AT LEAST $10/hour.

I MIGHT even be able to earn as much as $15/hr; 3-6 players, by and larger, tend to play quite poorly.

Are we in agreement that such a player should easily be able to earn at least the lower ($10/hr) figure ?

If not my next point is moot; if we are in agreement on this point would someone PLEASE provide a plausible answer to the following ? ? ?

*

I've played low limit (2/4 - 4/8) in almost every state in which it was/is legal - and in numerous "private games" and I have NEVER seen a LOOSE L/L game that produced more than 24-26 hands per hour. It's usually not the dealers fault, and it's often not the players fault; when the average pot is contested by 5-7 players pre-flop, and often has 3 or 4 still there at the river, it's almost impossible to deal out more hands than this.

*

Now let's move into the 21st century where without leaving my house I have a choice of hundreds of 3-6 games at dozens of sites.

The SLOWEST site I have ever seen puts out between 50 and 60 hands per hour.

I won't mention names, but they also have the softest 3-6 games I have seen in my entire life.

Several of the FASTER sites put out between 70-75 h/p/h, yet the games are still soft.

I'll grant you that NO online site has 3-6 games that are as soft as the typical live game in a major cardroom on a Friday or Saturday night, however, no online site charges a rake of 10%, max. $4 plus tip.

That's right boys and girls, that is what it costs to play East coast poker; Vegas has a somewhat lower rake (max. $3 last time I was there) but they still get it sooner than they do online.

I believe the Mirage takes $1 at $12, $24 and $40; EVERY online site takes it at $20, $40, and $60 - and there is obviously no tipping.

The lower rake online tends to compensate for the fact that, on average, the players are a LITTLE better.

*

Why then is it not reasonable to expect a winning player to earn anywhere from TWICE to THREE times as much online as he or she would in a cardroom ?

PLEASE - would someone give me the answer ? ? ?

*

I play a fair amount online, I do not keep meticulous stats, but I have won a tidy little sum this year - as well as for the past two years.

Add in the fact that all but a few sites allow you to play in two games at once and it would seem that a player who was merely competent ought to do very well.

I don't know my hourly rate online but I have always suspected it to be quite high.

Several years ago I spent a year in Atlantic City. I was younger and needed less $ to get by but I was able to make a living - I'd guess $2,500/month - playing mostly 3/6 and a little 5/10. I did put in alot of hours - I was dating a poker dealer at the time and usually "worked" her hours plus a few (we'd often go to the OTHER casino together and play weekend nights; she worked days) so my hourly rate may not have been anything to write home about but I always had money in my pocket and the bills were always paid on time.

I play ALOT better than I did then; most winning players do get better as time passes.

If we agree to stipulate that I'm 99% sure I could take a minimum of $10/hour out of a live game these days, wherein lies the flaw in my assumption that I could earn close to - if not more than - $25/hour online at the same stakes ? ? ?

I'm not interested in playing full time - live or online - but there are ALOT of people out there for whom $25/hour would be a nice amount of money to earn doing something they enjoy.

Also remember that the option to play two games at once pushes this figure closer to $50/hour - geez, that's more than 95% of the people in this country earn at their jobs and many people HATE THEIR JOBS !

Am I unable to see the forest for the trees ?

Am I overlooking something obvious ?

*

I implore anyone with a take on this topic to help me with this.

Thanks in advance for all replies.

Best wishes,

- Chris

*

"Poker is the love of my life; Omaha is my mistress."

[1800GAMBLER]

This 1BB per hour figure has always confused me. I'm starting to think it only applies at higher limits, due to the increase in better players.

I've been playing poker for 3 months now and 2 months and 3 weeks of those were fake money, i did however play very obsessively for long periods, but i'm nowhere near a solid player.

Pretty much all my game is, starting hands, understanding odds and adjusting to the table and players. Yet i'm taking these games for a lot more than 1BB per hour. It could be argued that i'm on a winning streak due to my hours since i have only played for about 40 hours, so my results aren't too accurate.

So i think this is due to the limits i'm playing at plus the people who i am playing against motivates.

I also agree with you that i'd never make this live. I play 6 handed, even though all of them see the flop it's still fast. I play 2 tables, but the BB i meantioned is worked out per table.

[bernie]

$10 an hour in a live 3-6 game is far fetched. no way youll make $15. not even a great, world class player would. not because of the players, but because the rake is so high in comparison to the bets.

online sites generally have lower rakes than cardroom and no tips. this alone will improve profits. online youre seeing many more hands per hour, so your hourly rate will essentially be higher than live. when directly comparing how 'good' a game is between online and live, you have to compare your win rate with a hands per hour number. not just an hourly rate. meaning, you could be winning at 3BB an hour online, but are seeing twice as many hands as live. so youd actually be making 1.5BB an hour in comparison.

multi tables has its pros and cons. one con is that your attention is divided so you may miss some stuff. but a pro is you can compensate by seeing many more hands. cant get confused with 2 tables? play 2 shorthanded tables and try keeping up with the action. especially if it's 2 aggressive games. (btw...i usually play 2 tables. have tried 3 at a time, but 2 is about my limit. some can handle 3)

anyways...

just some ideas...

b

[Sargon]

Let's assume, hypothetically, that one wants to play poker solely for the purpose of making money, and that one is unwilling to play online. Unless you are already at least a "very good" player, I am starting (continuing?) to question whether it is worth it to put in the apparently immense amount of study you need in order to win. 1.5BB an hour at 5-10 is only $15 an hour, and you have to be very good to achieve that. Not only that, you have to be willing to endure the swings around the mean. Therefore, if you assume that a person would not play poker if not for the the money-making opportunities, should the study of it be abandoned by such person? To get into real money territory, you have to be willing to play 20-40, and I would think you have to be quite good indeed to play at those levels. Any thoughts would be appreciated, and thanks for previous responses.

[DeezNuts]

This 1BB/hr is pretty much nonsense. It is purely theoretical based upon a loose average of past results. One of the reasons it is nonsense is because you have people trying to apply it to online and shorthanded games where hands are dealt out much more quickly. I believe an author wrote about the misuse of this statistic in Card Player a few months back, where he cautions to not get sucked into thinking that if you play for long enough, you will make 1BB*x(hours).

Tommy Angelo had a post where he was asked what he made per hour, but he replied that an hour is so subjective in terms of poker. The largest absolute value that you can use, according to him, is each hand dealt. I agree with this completely. If you can find your per/hand rate, that would make more sense.

Of course, getting down to the per/hand rate requires a bit more attention than I like to pay while at the casino(I'd rather not have to bring a pen and paper). So I still use the ol' per/hour measurement. But this is not to see if I can reach the theoretical 1BB/hr mark, but rather to see if my time spent playing poker is more profitable than anything else I could be doing(putting more time in at the office, etc), which I believe is what truly defines a winning poker player(so no, you cannot really be a winning player at anything below 10-20, IMO).

DN

[bernie]

enjoying playing it also helps even if youre not making the max. many players supplement their incomes with it. even as a hobby to study and play. if one could play chess for money, even just to supplement a little and make it more interesting, it can be the same situation. to a degree.

it just depends on how much you want to make. but i dont know anyone that plays for money who also doesnt enjoy it at least a little.

nothing like getting paid for something you like to do. which is what it's about for many players.

b

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I kept maticulous stats on my live game play for two years and made 1.3 BB/hour at 3-6 kill and 1.2 BB/hour at 4-8 kill, with about a thousand hours of play in each of those two years. I played 8-16 and actually did better, but had a small and statistically insignificant # of hours. Obviously, this should be fairly good evidence that I'm a winning player.

Despite this, I haven't slaughtered the online games like you're suggesting can be done. And I doubt many other people have, despite lots of claims and tall tales. $50 an hour is a pipe dream, tho you should still be able to do quite well. Playing two tables at once will undoubtedly reduce your edge at each table at least a little, mistakes get made, time pressures become a problem and you can't spend as much time concentrating on the players.

al

[D. Andrew]

My online results were mediocre as well.