Huh ?
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.
Are you saying that the best of the 10-20 limit bunch is earning no more than the best of the 1-2 blind N-L players ?
I respectfully disagree; it cannot be so. 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).
It would then follow that the internet is awash with players 4-tabling 200 NL and earning in excess of double this. (The extra table compensating for the lesser win rate)
I'm aware that the competition at small NL is atrocious; the 1-2 live in A.C. is a joke and the 2-5 is only a little better but this just cannot be.
If you stand by your claim that this is run of the mill money for small NL, where does it end ?
I'm aware that the competition gets tougher as we move up but this seems to suggest that there are more than a few people out there who have a legitimate shot for mid-six figures in 2006 and that the really good (as in REALLY good) ones just might make 1,000,000.
As insane as that sounds when you first hear it, remember - a million per year is only 500/hour for a 40-hr-week worker and 250 for someone with no outside life.
I have heard claims from people whose word is gold of having long-term win rates for LIVE 5-10 blind NL that would shock the avarage person but therein lies the key.
Few people would describe online limit as being harder to play than live but NL - it's just made for live play. I would think the disparity between the good and the excellent, live vs online, would be much smaller on a computer.
Please respond - if I'm wrong I REALLY want to know and you'll be doing me a HUGE favor by telling me.
Best wishes for the holiday,
- Chris
|