Quick, easy hourly EV question

Just thought I'd throw this one out there, a bit of a hypothetical:

In an online game, what would be a reasonable stakes level to play to obtain an expected hourly win rate of $20? .50/1? .25/.50?

2/4 assuming you make about 4-7bb/100 and get in 70-120 hands/hour.

It's actually pretty simple math. You just need to figure your winrate and playrate.

Of course, your winrate will vary by stakes, so it's hard to say. You could go to 2/4 and lose. 2/4's probably the lowest level that you can EXPECT to make $20/hour, though.

There is the aspect of multi-tabling, of course. If you multi-table, just divide the bb by the number of tables. For instance, if you play 4 tables, you can play .50/1(4/4) and look to be making $20/hour.

Playing 4 tables 100nl would probably be the first level where you could get $20/hour. That's assuming 100hands/hour and a 5bb/100 winrate.

Hmm...I get the feeling that there are conditions present in non-micro stakes online play that are impossible for me to account for at this time. In a game of 1c/2 NL, there would be plenty of pots that could be described as a reasonable number of big blinds...but there would also be a few pots that reached a prodigious amount of them--20, 30, or more. The method of play I attempted yesterday was to focus on waiting for the right moment to win one of those, and I won $2 that way in a relatively short time, though I don't know HOW short.

Now, in .50/1 NL, the max stack size a player can bring is $100. The minimum is $40, but I'd hope it's a safe assumption that most people at least bring in somewhere between the 2 values--say, 60-80 at least. With a similar focus on winning significantly large pots by waiting for the right moment, I'm not seeing how winning a mere $5 in 100 hands is the expectation for that level. Now, I realize that taking greater risks with this method opens me up to greater losses, but is it not the function of a properly fleshed out bankroll to be able to withstand such variances?

I can't help but conclude there's something I'm missing here, something that would be obvious if I had actual experience at such stake levels, but I don't, so all I can do is ask the good people of this forum.

Lheticus said:

Now, in .50/1 NL, the max stack size a player can bring is $100. The minimum is $40, but I'd hope it's a safe assumption that most people at least bring in somewhere between the 2 values--say, 60-80 at least. With a similar focus on winning significantly large pots by waiting for the right moment, I'm not seeing how winning a mere $5 in 100 hands is the expectation for that level.

Click to expand...

100nl is way tougher than 2nl, winrates of 10-20bb/100 are easily attainable at 2nl, but 100nl is going to be a different story because the players are that much better. "Waiting for the right moment" won't work, the regs will notice and exploit you. It will still work vs some of the fish but there wont be many of them. So "the right moment" will come along a lot less often at 100nl while the blinds and rake constantly chew away at your winrate.

Lheticus said:

Hmm...I get the feeling that there are conditions present in non-micro stakes online play that are impossible for me to account for at this time. In a game of 1c/2 NL, there would be plenty of pots that could be described as a reasonable number of big blinds...but there would also be a few pots that reached a prodigious amount of them--20, 30, or more. The method of play I attempted yesterday was to focus on waiting for the right moment to win one of those, and I won $2 that way in a relatively short time, though I don't know HOW short.

Now, in .50/1 NL, the max stack size a player can bring is $100. The minimum is $40, but I'd hope it's a safe assumption that most people at least bring in somewhere between the 2 values--say, 60-80 at least. With a similar focus on winning significantly large pots by waiting for the right moment, I'm not seeing how winning a mere $5 in 100 hands is the expectation for that level. Now, I realize that taking greater risks with this method opens me up to greater losses, but is it not the function of a properly fleshed out bankroll to be able to withstand such variances?

I can't help but conclude there's something I'm missing here, something that would be obvious if I had actual experience at such stake levels, but I don't, so all I can do is ask the good people of this forum.

Click to expand...

What you're missing imo is that poker just isn't that easy at that level. What you describe sounds something like a combination of nitting it up and perhaps also running a massive bluff (but only once in a blue moon).

The frequency of the times these pots develop isn't as high as you probably think, and your frequency of winning them when they DO develop likely isn't as high as you're used to at lower levels either.

Micromachine is 100% right in describing 100nl in a nutshell. Those players aren't going to let you sit around and try to only take stabs at large pots.

But another problem with what you're describing is: how will you even know when large pots develop? Aside from say, 4bet pots preflop, you just won't know whether a pot - especially a single raised pot - is going to be massive by the turn or river. So how do you know whether or not to get involved preflop?

And in any case, I think you might be taking the wrong approach in general. Poker is about finding, creating, and exploiting profitable situations - over and over and over. It's not about sitting there twiddling your thumbs and magically taking down every large pot.

That all being said though, I kind of have to disagree with others saying that 100nl is the first level someone could make $20/hour at. I think that 50nl is the first level someone could, but most players could not. I say this because at 50nl you would would either need a massive winrate or a lot of tables. But it can definitely be done. Let's say your WR is 2bb/100, or $1/100 hands. If you could play 2,000 hands/hour you could make $20/hr. Granted this is insanity for most players. But if you made 4bb/100, you could play just 1,000 hands/hr.

Again, most players couldn't. But I think 50nl is the first level at which it is reasonably achievable. But tbf a player that good, who could multitable that much while still maintaining a strong WR would likely be better off playing 100nl anyway. They might not quite double their hourly, but if they are crushing 50nl that hard they would probably make significantly more by playing the same hands/hour at 100nl.

Ya its not impossible at 50NL but you will have to be seriously good and disciplined to maintain that sort of winrate at 50NL. At 100NL you SHOULD be earning 20/hour if you are not then you are being outplayed at that level.

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

I did say on 4 tables though

It's gonna be very tough to win $20/hour consistently 4 tabling 50nl, possible maybe, but you'd need to be utterly crushing the level for ~10bb/100

micromachine said:

I did say on 4 tables though

It's gonna be very tough to win $20/hour consistently 4 tabling 50nl, possible maybe, but you'd need to be utterly crushing the level for ~10bb/100

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, too. There's no way for me to get 1k hands in an hour, though, unless I'm running at least 10 tables. I'm nowhere near that level.

Obviously we're kind of leaving volume out of everything, but it matters almost more than any other question posed because if you're 16-tabling, you can play 10 or 16nl and make $20/hour.

I could easily see someone pulling $20/hour while multi-tabling 50nl zoom/rush/speed, but as it was stated, you'd have to be in beast mode like, all of the time.

25NL Zoom, 1k hands/hour (on 4 tables), win rate 8 bb/100 (hard to maintain over big samples)

-or-

50NL Zoom, 1k hands/hour, win rate 4 bb/100 (doable but you have to be good)


If you are willing to count VPP value then 25NLZ is where it is at.

Ya if we count VPP value then surely it's doable at 50NL, I didn't think about that before.

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

I already put all those caveats in, guys *eye roll* lol

But I don't think that 10-tabling is that weird for a regular who is beating 50nl at a good clip? Back in the day everyone was 12- or 16-tabling or w/e. And again, someone who CAN beat 50nl for $20/hour can most likely beat 100nl for more.

Scourrge said:

I already put all those caveats in, guys *eye roll* lol

Click to expand...

I know you included it, and we did our best to also, but the OP didn't so we don't know what level it would be because we don't know what kind of volume he's putting in. We kind of have to ignore those aspects because, for now, they're variables. I was more suggesting that OP give us some more info, in a sly manner.

BenjiHustle said:

I know you included it, and we did our best to also, but the OP didn't so we don't know what level it would be because we don't know what kind of volume he's putting in. We kind of have to ignore those aspects because, for now, they're variables. I was more suggesting that OP give us some more info, in a sly manner.

Click to expand...

I don't have any more info for you because as of right now, me even playing those levels is a purely hypothetical scenario--sorry.

BenjiHustle said:

I know you included it, and we did our best to also, but the OP didn't so we don't know what level it would be because we don't know what kind of volume he's putting in. We kind of have to ignore those aspects because, for now, they're variables. I was more suggesting that OP give us some more info, in a sly manner.

Click to expand...

I got it.

Yeah fwiw though, I wouldn't recommend you multitable just to try to increase your hourly. Most people would do better playing fewer tables to increase their own abilities so they can move up. Very few people have actually reached their peak ability - usually not even close. So if you just multitable a ton and stop focusing on improving then it really stunts your growth, and in all likelihood decreases your long-term hourly.

Be like jchoop, he was beasting 2nl for $20 an hour.

Okay so I exaggerate, but he was beating 10nl for like twenty something an hour maybe even prerakeback over a 30-40k sample, I think that was deep though.

loafes said:

Be like jchoop, he was beasting 2nl for $20 an hour.

Okay so I exaggerate, but he was beating 10nl for like twenty something an hour maybe even prerakeback over a 30-40k sample, I think that was deep though.

Click to expand...

When was that? Because the fish pool is much smaller then it was couple of years ago? Even on 10nl.
Also was the super multitabling, or really having so many bb/100 hands?

He had an ridiculously good WR at 2nl and was mass multitabling

IIRC he was playing 9+ tables of 10nl with a WR of around 8bb/100

Less than a year ago, and yeah he was playing a ton of tables. Plus he could have been crushing 50nl+ in all likelihood. He had BR constraints which made him decide to play lower and just play a shit ton of volume.

Fwiw I was making more than $20/hour at $50nl. Like people are saying though, I always ran 9-12+ tables @ ~4ptbb/100 and then 750-1k+ hands per hour



Tend to get about 65 hands/hour on standard tables so at $50nl:

4 tables = 260 hands/hour; 7.7ptbb/100 (15.4bb/100) = $20/hour
9 tables = 585 hands/hour; 3.4ptbb/100 (6.8bb/100) = $20/hour
12 tables = 780 hands/hour; 2.6ptbb/100 (5.2bb/100) = $20/hour *This was where I spent most of my time*
18 tables = 1170 hands/hour; 1.7ptbb/100 (3.4bb/100) = $20/hour

So if you can meet any of the above parameters then you will make $20/hour at $50nl

Disagree, the fish at 100NL are different than at micro but they are still fish. They are the aggro kind that like to 3-bet/4-bet more and try put you to really tough decision if they think they can bluff you off a weak pair. OKOK maybe they are trying to balance their range but the thing is they are waaaaay out of line with how they do it. They look like geniuses when they catch cards, but if you stick around long enough they will literally bluff away entire stacks. After a while you see their polarization and you can blast them back when they start trying to pot control for showdown value with their weak pairs and pockets. My record was 4x buyins from some random guy at NL100 heads up in the span of 30 minutes.

micromachine said:

100nl is way tougher than 2nl, winrates of 10-20bb/100 are easily attainable at 2nl, but 100nl is going to be a different story because the players are that much better. "Waiting for the right moment" won't work, the regs will notice and exploit you. It will still work vs some of the fish but there wont be many of them. So "the right moment" will come along a lot less often at 100nl while the blinds and rake constantly chew away at your winrate.

Click to expand...

seventhcereal said:

Disagree, the fish at 100NL are different than at micro but they are still fish. They are the aggro kind that like to 3-bet/4-bet more and try put you to really tough decision if they think they can bluff you off a weak pair. OKOK maybe they are trying to balance their range but the thing is they are waaaaay out of line with how they do it. They look like geniuses when they catch cards, but if you stick around long enough they will literally bluff away entire stacks. After a while you see their polarization and you can blast them back when they start trying to pot control for showdown value with their weak pairs and pockets. My record was 4x buyins from some random guy at NL100 heads up in the span of 30 minutes.

Click to expand...

What you are describing are lag players and yes there are good lag players and bad lag players however they aren't even comparable to the sort of fish you get at micro stakes.

Anybody who is capable of firing 3 barrels with air is never an easy player to play with unless they c bet all streets every single time they open a hand which not many players do.

How do you play TPGK hands with these players? Do you trap them with 2 pair or scare them away? As I said never easy playing against a half decent lag. Where as I can stack off micro stakes fish all day long.

Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk

/Logan/ said:

Is 2 years now from JC
[old link~tb]

wr on 10 was like 16
​

Click to expand...

So 9.8bb/100 over 50k? Not bad but not the best. I might be jaded but that's only a little better than what I was doing at $50nl (granted the game's changed a bit since I was playing full time)

***EDIT***

Funny story, I found out I had $100 in my Carbon account so I started playing. Right now I'm playing $10nl and I'm making.....$20.60/hour LOL

Clearly not planning on sustaining that, but kind of funny given the context

Why bother with 50nl when can made $3k+ on 2nl.

Remember the sicko that load 1millon hands on 31days?