Largest Sustainable _Loss_ Rate?

[parappa]

I've been wondering about the most common question on the limit forums turned on its head. Let's say a player plays limit hold'em very badly (let's say Party .5/1 if it'll help). His VP$P is 100% and he calls to the river if he gets any piece of the board on the flop, otherwise he folds (or something).

My question is: What is the largest sustainable losing rate for this guy in bb/100? We hear numbers about 5bb/100 being near the top sustainable winning rate. How much is it possible to lose long-term? 10bb/100? 15? Less?

Just wondering if anyone had a range for this.

[Iceman]

While it's possible for a horrible limit holdem player to lose 5 BB/hr in B&M or 10 BB/hr online, how many people would lose at that rate and keep playing?

(Much faster loss rates are possible in shorthanded limit games, limit games other than holdem, and of course in NL/PL.)

Most of the really horrible players either give up poker quickly or figure out some ideas about how to play that vastly reduce their loss rate (playing only some of their starting hands, folding on the flop with nothing, etc.) If someone only loses 1-2 BB/hr, they will have many winning sessions in the short-run, and can even be way ahead before the odds catch up to them. There's enough short-term luck in limit holdem, Omaha-8, and stud that players who know just the very basics won't do THAT badly, especially in games where many of their opponents are almost as bad as they are.

[rdu $teve]

I think I saw this in action on Saturday at a Borgatta 6/12 table. The fish to my left was basically playing the strategy that you described; no matter what the board showed or the action from other players, he bet/call all the way to the river with:
-any pocket pair, even with two overs on the flop
-any hole-card that paired any part of the board
-even if the board had a 3 or 4 straight or flush
Of hands that he called preflop, he played at least 90% of them to the river. He dropped at least 120 BB in about 8 hours. Given a rate of 35 hands/hour, that is -42.8 BB/100.

I really would've liked to see his starting hand requirements, and maybe listened to his reasoning on calling bets with his horrible hands. But then his thinking could have tainted mine and prevented me from making all the $$$ that I did.

[adamstewart]

It's possible to loose 12 BB/'s per hand.

Therefore it's possible to loose -1200 BB/100. (Though very, very, very .... improbable)

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


Adam

[Cosimo]

Let's say Bad Player plays almost every hand to the river, rarely folding but smart enough to raise on the turn with his trips. He'll win more than 10% of the hands; maybe as high as 20% at tight tables. Each hand has three people in it. -80% + 3x20% = -20%. Say 3BB invested per pot on average. This works out to 0.6BB/hand, or -60BB/100h. This doesn't include rake or tips.

At a looser, more passive table, he'll win fewer hands (but as one of the loosest player at the table he'll still win more than most) but that will be compensated a bit by larger pots. Still, a bad, loose player loses more at a loose table than at a tight one.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, a bad, loose player loses more at a loose table than at a tight one.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're talking strictly about limit holdem I disagree with that statement. At a tight table, a horribly overly loose player will lose more, since his random hands will often run into dominating hands, and since he'll get less action those few times his hands are good. In a very loose game, huge pots can make any reasonable postflop draw correct, and only the very worst hands do much worse than the field against several opponents.

[umdpoker]

"It's possible to loose 12 BB/'s per hand.

Therefore it's possible to loose -1200 BB/100. (Though very, very, very .... improbable) "

actually, this is wrong. do you see why? 12 is unattainable, but at least gives an upper bound to start from.

[adamstewart]

I know.

I was being 'humerous.'

[pfkaok]

Well, if he were trying to, and playing in a very aggressive game, he could lose 12 BB per hand by raising to get the betting capped every round, then mucking on the end without showing his hand... with a bet and 4 raises, he could potentially up his rate to 15 BB per hand. of course he'd need some help from other players to achieve this record-setting pace.

[parappa]

I now see, of course, that this is a silly, imponderable question. My idea was to be able at the end to say "if even a bad player with a clue is losing x bb's per hour, he can't actually be that bad; he must also be running bad."

Perhaps a better question would've been how much an average player could consistently lose in the toughest games playing reasonablly, but not particularly well.