Question for the experts

[Grisgra]

I was the one who made that comment -- and it wasn't a monkey, it was a chimp. A retarded chimp, if I recall correctly [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

If you've broke even over the last 2500 hands . . . well, welcome to poker. But if you're a 1BB/100 winner on average at 5/10 full (not a high win rate) and you played 2 tables 30hrs/week, then you'd be making about $12/hr, 30hrs a week.

$360/week, or about $19,000 a year. So there you are [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Ekeing out $10-$15/hr online isn't hard if you multitable, even if you aren't a sterling player. But it does sound like you've got a ways to go if you are complaining about being a winner player, but now breaking even over the last 2500 hands. 2500 hands is nothin'.

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that, if I'm playing only the hands that I should be playing, and the best I'm doing is taking down 6-9% of the total hands in a 10-handed game, then there is no way I could be winning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where do you get this idea? You will win the most pots if you play every hand and never fold. If you do this in a 10-handed game, you will win roughly 10% of the pots over the long term. But you don't want to do this! You want to play only those hands that have a good chance of being winners, not 72o hoping for a flop of 772. (As another poster said, you want to win the most money you can, not the most pots you can.)

I would think that any winning player at 10-handed small stakes limit MUST have a winning percentage significantly less than 10% of dealt hands. (If you play with weak-tight rocks who routinely fold to bluffs, then in principle it could be higher. But this is far from typical for small stakes.)

[haakee]

7% is pretty typical for a winning player in a full ring game.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I read a recent post that said a monkey could make 20k/yr. playing poker on the internet. Well, I'm smarter than a monkey and I haven't figured out how to do this yet -- can you teach me?? (seriously!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Buy a monkey.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I read a recent post that said a monkey could make 20k/yr. playing poker on the internet. Well, I'm smarter than a monkey and I haven't figured out how to do this yet -- can you teach me?? (seriously!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Buy a monkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better yet, buy ten [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[john222]

That's some great advice -- thanks a lot. Also, I didn't realize so many people were using poker tracker and that it is so helpful. I'll be buying it today -- thanks!

[john222]

Makes sense -- thanks. It didn't occur to me that the player at the table winning the highest % of hands is also most likely the player losing the highest % of hands.

[Fudomyo]

I have watched this number for a long time. Afterall it seems like it should be important some how.

If you really pay attention to the pot size, you'll start noticing that you might make money at 4%, you hit a few big pots. Break even or lose at 10%, cause you got good cards, but noone was in with you.

Won$SD is probably a better number as far as how you are running. Still doesn't mean you won a thing however.