[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it's basically easier said than done.

I am living proof of this in fact as I am NOT making as much on the ring-games as I would like.

I fully agree that maintaining a 3BB/100 win-rate would be quite difficult...and certainly most players who are good enough to do this would be moving up at some point.

I do know a couple of players who have done quite well at the 3/6 and 5/10 limits though as full-timers. They are more risk-averse so they don't move up.



One counter-argument regarding the hands-played figures is that it is now VERY possible to average even more hands per hour at 3/6 on the 6-max tables on party and I don't think a 2BB/100 win-rate on those tables is AT ALL unrealistic.
Many of those 6-max tables will be in the 90-95 hds/hr range.
So those who can 4-table the 6-max's should be able to get 350 hands an hour without too much difficulty.


Your other thought about it becoming a 'real grind' is certainly correct.
I'm kind of bouncing around from ring-games to SNG's to poker-stars W$ satellites to occasional regular MTT's just to keep it interesting.
I believe that the EV I gain in giving myself some variety is well worth it.
Even if I would be more profitable on the ring-games in the long-run I think it's okay. I know I'm +EV on the other games as well....and I just haven't had the discipline to put in my regular 7k+ hands a week.
I have so much respect for those who can do that. I am learning that no matter how much I try to crank myself up I just can't seem to grind it out like that consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah MicroBob, my comment was a nitpick of the highest order...I just thought there was the implication that the 50k at 3/6 isn't a difficult task. And it clearly is.

Of course if you do even a third of your hands at 5/10 it becomes significantly easier (asuming a comparable winrate there.

And I'll make one more nit as long as I'm at it. If you can pull 90-95 hands an hour on a table of 6 max, there's no way over the course of a week where you have to hit 8400 hands that you're going to average 350 hands an hour for that stretch. This seems so obvious to me that I'm surprised its even debatable. Does anybody see why or am I the lone voice in the wilderness on this one?