The general consensus is that you are doing very well to make $25/hr at $200NLH[/QUOT
I play live 1-2 with a 300 max buy in and I have a dozen friends that do also. No one that I know that has a legitimate sample size of jours comes close to having a win rate of $25 per hour. I call BS.
The general consensus is that you are doing very well to make $25/hr at $200NLH
I play live 1-2 with a 300 max buy in and I have a dozen friends that do also. No one that I know that has a legitimate sample size of jours comes close to having a win rate of $25 per hour. I call BS.
861 hours enough of a sample size? And I'm not even saying I am good. I'm saying that players that do very well can get $25/hr.
Blackrain79 mentions a $20/hr rate for $1/$2 live in this article: https://www.blackrain79.com/2018/06/good-poker-hourly-rate.html
He cautions, though: "I need to be very clear here that only a tiny percentage of people will ever even make it to the mid or high stakes games, let alone become one of the biggest winners in them."
I also believe this is true. The original question was the average. And I also agree the average player is net negative and loosing long term. To win at all you have to be above average enough to account for the other players at the table and the rake the casino takes from the pot. So we are really having several conversations here, average player, average winner, average crusher? Take your pick.The average would be less than zero because the dealer would get tips.
861 hours enough of a sample size? And I'm not even saying I am good. I'm saying that players that do very well can get $25/hr.
Your sample size is way too small to be considered statistically significant. I have a sample size of over 15,000 hours and my win rate is $15.12. My best year was 2005, at the height of the poker boom, with 875 hours and rate of $18.61. I informally polled a group of 10 semi-professional poker playing friends and the win rates at 1/2 live ranged from $12-$16. This group includes a friend who has a WSOP bracelet. If you truly are confident in your potentially flawed win rate, I would take your obvious enormous talents to the 2/5 game immediately. IMO your current rate is as a result of one of three things 1) you are a poker prodigy like Tom Dwan and Phil Ivey were (unlikely) or 2) you play in the softest 1/2 game(s) on the planet (possible) or 3) you have been experiencing the positive side of variance over a small sample size (highly likely). Please post your number when you have a sample size of at least 2000 hours.
Salary doesn't enter into the equation for me...I'm unemployed (a fancy word for it is "Retired!").