Quotation from "Small Stakes Hold'em"

[livinitup0]

I think you are taking a "If I do what the book says I'll make a ton of money" approach. You need to have your own individualism, and make decisions off good reads as well as good strategy.

This is how all begginners start out though.. One thing to remember is that you could play those 8 hours a day, (which you wont) everyday, (which you wont) 3 tabling (why just 3??)...and yet after a year (approximate 480,000 hands...at FR) you still wouldnt be close to determining your true W/R.
Poker has swings....BIG swings...no really...BIG SWINGS!!!
especially if you are a good, aggressive player.

Averages are hard to figure out when you add...umm....varience.

[7stud]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I'm aware of that, maybe I wasn't clear about my question. May I put it this way: Is it realististic to win more than 50 gran a year on 3/6 (or 5/10) playing 3 tables only following the guidelines of "Small Stakes Hold'em" (and do it well of course) without any extraordinary "expert" skills?
I believe that is what Sklansky says or am I misinterpreting him?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've read a few of the 2+2 books, and although they are often considered the definitive works in their area, few players have the ability to organize the strategies into a cohesive game plan and/or lack the discipline to follow them.

[Guthrie]

I think Ed was referring to playing 3/6 in a live card room. Online games are much tougher than live, reducing your win rate, but you can multitable, which gets your hourly rate back up.

He has since revised that number greatly upward to reflect online play.

When I played at the Bike, I was lucky to get in 200 hands in a long day, including a grueling drive on the LA freeways. Now I can easily get in 200 hands an hour playing in my underwear.

Online you will play 60-70 hands per hour per table. 62.5 hands/hr is a good number to use because it makes the math come out pretty.

Assume you 4-table for 8 hours a day for 5 days:
62.5 * 4 * 8 = 2000 hands/day * 5 = 10k hands/week.

Do this for 40 weeks/year = 400k hands/year. We usually talk about winrates as BB/100 hands, so that's 4000 units.

3BB/100 is sustainable at $3/$6.

So that's 4000 * 3 = 12000 BB * $6 = $72000/year.

And there are people sustaining that winrate, or higher, at much higher limits.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Ed was referring to playing 3/6 in a live card room.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[silkyslim]

i make $25 an hour 6-tabling 2/4 (this includes rakeback and bonuses) so if I played for ~40 hours/week I would make 50k/year. so i think is is pretty doabe at 3/6

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read "Small Stakes Hold'em" for the second time and I wonder about what is said in the beginning under "Why This Book..." Sklansky suggests "Making well over $50.000 per year playing $3-6 hold'em is now no big deal." This could be done "because you can play two or three games at once". Is this expactation realistic? It seems a little high to me. Is there any 2+2er who could confirm it's possible based on experience? Anyone else with ideas and thoughts about it please post your views about expectations at low limit hold'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Astroglide posted stats that verified it. Some people around here are playing 10 or more tables of 3/6.

peace

john nickle

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Ed was referring to playing 3/6 in a live card room.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
Show me exactly where in his book he says otherwise.

[Seether]

The spot where he mentions 50k per year? No one is pulling in 50k a year playing live 3/6.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Ed was referring to playing 3/6 in a live card room.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
Show me exactly where in his book he says otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what casino can you "play two or three games at once"?