[ QUOTE ]
A very good NL player in a game with blinds of .50 and $1 should win $20 per hundred hands ?
If this is true I find it amazing that anyone would play limit.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's true.
There are reasons to play limit. It may be easier to multitable to a higher degree in limit and to get in more hands per table-hour. You may be able to find bigger limit games. Some people win at limit and lose at NL. There are many books on limit that can point you in the right direction but no good book I know of for NL cash games (HOH is for tournament play with shorter stacks).
[ QUOTE ]
You are saying that there are a significant number of people out there who are 3-tabling 100 NL and earning $30+ per hour ? (This assumes 50 hands per hour which is about average).
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, when I 4-table NL $100 6-max, I get over 300 hands per hour, and my average has been just over $70/hour (+- $15/hour).
[ QUOTE ]
If you stand by your claim that this is run of the mill money for small NL, where does it end ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. I'm investigating this myself. Before the Mid-High NL forum split, there was a thread that suggested 5 PTBB/100 is a good rate for NL 600+. The games may have gotten softer since then.
By the way, the
SSNL FAQ sugests that 7-8 PTBB/100 is sustained by "fairly good" players. That's very clearly an underestimate for NL 25. It might be more accurate for NL 200 and NL 400, which used to be discussed in SSNL.
[ QUOTE ]
I would think the disparity between the good and the excellent, live vs online, would be much smaller on a computer.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a lot to learn, but I regularly exploit leaks of winning players. However, the main source of profit is the fish, who exist at all levels.
You'll be interested in several entries in the
August 2005 archive of Tillerman's blog.