Dusan
Enthusiast
Silver Level
This is my own theory and does not reflect the opinions of anyone. What I have here is a sample of 120,000 hands and the statistics associated with.
The following big hands got to showdown and won:
Sets 320
Straights 182
Flushes 180
Full Houses 270
Quads 50
Pocket Kings 91
Pocket Aces 109
Totals big hands winning at the showdown 1,202
Hands played = 120,000
Hands/hour = 34 (live play)
Hours = 3,530 (two years at the live tables)
Big Win /100 hands = 1.1
Big Win /3.5hrs = 1.1
So, as you can see, there's on average one big hand per 3.5 hours when you have a Set or better and it got to the showdown in an obvious big pot. Hopefully for stacks. If you play for living full time, you can expect to play for stacks twice in 8 hours and have at least a Set or better. Just give me time and I break anyone.
===========================
In live, low-limit games, you win money by doubling up or busting people with your big hands that stay strong all the way to the showdown. Anything else makes you fall victim to the rake. You have a chance to play a big pot approx two times per hour. You flop a set, have the NFD plus pair, draw to your OESD plus two overs, ...etc. Most of these times a big pot does not pan out. It takes two hands at least to make a big pot. Or you just miss to your big draw.
Approx once every three hours or 1/100_hands, you play a big pot with your big hand and win at the showdown. Now, when you go card dead, when the draws go in the muck, AK misses 2 out of 3 times--when poker happens, your stack and profits slowly melts away until you hit your average hourly rate of about 10-12 big blinds per hour. On average, of course ..., You can play TAG and this is the usual result. You can play LAG and increase the chances, but your swings will be a lot bigger and, I believe based upon a lot of observation, the results will be fairly close to the same. LAGs who are great hand readers with clairvoyant powers of supernatural ability to perceive events in the future or beyond normal, ... ha ha ha ha! ...., can manage to avoid falling in deep holes, but their SD is correspondingly much higher.
That's the theory. Have it
The following big hands got to showdown and won:
Sets 320
Straights 182
Flushes 180
Full Houses 270
Quads 50
Pocket Kings 91
Pocket Aces 109
Totals big hands winning at the showdown 1,202
Hands played = 120,000
Hands/hour = 34 (live play)
Hours = 3,530 (two years at the live tables)
Big Win /100 hands = 1.1
Big Win /3.5hrs = 1.1
So, as you can see, there's on average one big hand per 3.5 hours when you have a Set or better and it got to the showdown in an obvious big pot. Hopefully for stacks. If you play for living full time, you can expect to play for stacks twice in 8 hours and have at least a Set or better. Just give me time and I break anyone.
===========================
In live, low-limit games, you win money by doubling up or busting people with your big hands that stay strong all the way to the showdown. Anything else makes you fall victim to the rake. You have a chance to play a big pot approx two times per hour. You flop a set, have the NFD plus pair, draw to your OESD plus two overs, ...etc. Most of these times a big pot does not pan out. It takes two hands at least to make a big pot. Or you just miss to your big draw.
Approx once every three hours or 1/100_hands, you play a big pot with your big hand and win at the showdown. Now, when you go card dead, when the draws go in the muck, AK misses 2 out of 3 times--when poker happens, your stack and profits slowly melts away until you hit your average hourly rate of about 10-12 big blinds per hour. On average, of course ..., You can play TAG and this is the usual result. You can play LAG and increase the chances, but your swings will be a lot bigger and, I believe based upon a lot of observation, the results will be fairly close to the same. LAGs who are great hand readers with clairvoyant powers of supernatural ability to perceive events in the future or beyond normal, ... ha ha ha ha! ...., can manage to avoid falling in deep holes, but their SD is correspondingly much higher.
That's the theory. Have it
Last edited:
