Average income for TAG/LAG

V

vivaitalia1

Guest
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Total posts
45
What do you all think is a good average income for a TAG and an LAG player (both ofcourse being good at that style).. In my opinion, because im TAG, 10-20BB/hour/table on average is good solid winnings, although you can win more in the presence of weak players What do you all think?
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
10BB/100 hands is generally accepted as the upper echelon of NL winrates in the long run.

Defining potential expectancies for TAG and LAG play is really rather redundant, as the 'correct' play style is largely determined by the table you're at. If a LAG plays LAG at a table full of calling stations, he's obviously not going to have as high an expectancy as a TAG, and vice versa.

LAG winrates are subject to a lot more variance though, for obvious reasons.
 
V

vivaitalia1

Guest
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Total posts
45
Dont you think it depends on the stakes as well? I think my 10-20BB/H is an exaggeration but Ive only been polaying constantly (6 hours a day) for around a month or so..
 
1548

1548

Rock Star
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Total posts
125
Dont you think it depends on the stakes as well? I think my 10-20BB/H is an exaggeration but Ive only been polaying constantly (6 hours a day) for around a month or so..


anywhere from 10bb min how much you can make in that hour. It all comes down to can you leave while your up to maximize your profits
 
NineLions

NineLions

Advanced beginner
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Total posts
4,979
I'm not sure why you would want to look at rates per hour because you want to compare a number of chances to win (ie. hands) to another number of chances to win.

If you do it by hour, your number of chances to win is not constant because there's a different number of hands per hour.

As DM said, 10BB/100 hands for NLHE is considered high over a long term. I was running around 22 when I started a new level which lasted about 2 weeks. I'm now around 5 or 6 for that same level overall. Maybe slightly better than that, but that's what I remember from the last time I checked.
 
J

jeffred1111

Visionary
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Total posts
792
Well, when you have an approx. hourly rate, you'll know how you should expect to win on average if you sit at the table for 4:30 hours. Very few people will set hands goal for a session, but many will set time goals so it becomes interesting for them to compare and know how they fared.

But it's true that unless you always play the same game (LIVE, where you can't count hands), you're better off figuring your BB/100 hands.
 
V

vivaitalia1

Guest
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Total posts
45
sorry i wanted to say per 100 hands but typed it too fast to realize. Well, i dont know what you mean by 'long run' but i strongly believe you can achieve a higher rate if you figure out the weak players on each site and find them all the time. BTW i dont beleive only 10% of players (like many ppl say) are winning players... wheres the other 90% losing to? the house? it cant be especially at higher limits where the max rake is the big blind or even twice the big blind. For god sake, if you have rake back and stay even on your table you would be generating a nice sum of money a month (provided you plkay a lot)
 
Top