Welcome.

Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

Live winrate tight/descent

Travisp33 Posts: 15Member
edited November -1 in NLHE Strategy Discussion
Anyone care to comment on the live winrates for a Jeremy/Damian type of player, with the following assumptions:

- well rolled for 5/5
- playing la 5/5 games 100bb deep
- plays mostly good evenings/weekends, not grinding 50 hrs week
- doesn't tilt

Comments

  • If you think that these two players are of similar skill level I would highly disagree.

    Bart
  • Travisp33 Posts: 15Member
    Interesting - I haven't watched much latb, just heard you comment on these two both being very tight preflop in clp. Ill have to watch some latb and see if I can figure out the differences.

    I guess what I was alluding too was can players who play really tight pre.
  • SkinnybrownSkinnybrown Posts: 286Member
    Only playing tight pre flop is not optimal. I would not worry about what that win rate is.
  • BradleyT Posts: 621SubscriberProfessional
    That level of tight (Damien) will get you really close to or slightly above break even but that's about it. He's raising with a range that averages to say AQ vs. a caller with a range that averages to say AJ and the math + relatively short stack nature of the game gives the money to the tighter player.

    His problem though is he's tight everywhere and IMO a poor hand/situation reader. Paraphrasing Limon from one of the DP podcasts - "the fish are there to give away their money, you can't get that money when you fold." Hand reading in position is where the money comes from.
  • chilidog Posts: 2,427Subscriber
    Travisp33 said

    Interesting - I haven't watched much latb, just heard you comment on these two both being very tight preflop in clp. Ill have to watch some latb and see if I can figure out the differences.

    I guess what I was alluding too was can players who play really tight pre.
    Agree with Bart. I've played with both of those guys and their style is not that similar.

    Depending on the player pool, and game selection, I think the general idea of win rates for good players ranges from 5 - 12 big blinds per hour.
  • I think Chilidogs estimates are pretty good even though it is a pretty wide range. The fact of the matter is it is very hard to estimate an accurate winrate in live poker. The sample size is very small even with thousands of hours and the game dynamics are always changing.

    Bart
  • ThehammahThehammah Posts: 7,090Subscriber
    Bart said

    I think Chilidogs estimates are pretty good even though it is a pretty wide range. The fact of the matter is it is very hard to estimate an accurate winrate in live poker. The sample size is very small even with thousands of hours and the game dynamics are always changing.

    Bart
    I tried to estimate once how many hours to approach a win rate 5 bb/ hour within 1 Standard deviation of my expectation. This is a statistical analysis saying to make variance balance out I need enough hands to smooth the curve. The get that many hands I figured I needed somewhere around 300,000 to 500,000 hands.. Some say you really need close to 1 million... at 6 hour sessions 2 to 3 times a week it was between 10 to 20 years

    30 hands an hour with shuffle machine * 6 hours = 180 hands in one session
    180 hands * 2 sessions= 360 hands a week

    360*52=18,720 hands a year

    300,000/20,000 =15 years

    180 hands*3 sessions= 540 hands a week
    540 *52=28,080
    300,000/30,000=10 years..

    You can see that in Live play this is brutal.. The long run in live poker is years and years and years.. Even if you play 40 hours a week as a pro its still years and years..

    5 sesssions at 8 hours = 5*8*30=1200 hands a week
    1200*52=62,400
    3000,000/60,000= 5 years.!

    So you can see that a single player can be within the normal parameters of variance for a very very long time.. either good or bad variance..

    Wendy
  • reedmylipsreedmylips Posts: 1,146Subscriber
    wendyweissman said
    Bart said

    I think Chilidogs estimates are pretty good even though it is a pretty wide range. The fact of the matter is it is very hard to estimate an accurate winrate in live poker. The sample size is very small even with thousands of hours and the game dynamics are always changing.

    Bart
    I tried to estimate once how many hours to approach a win rate 5 bb/ hour within 1 Standard deviation of my expectation. This is a statistical analysis saying to make variance balance out I need enough hands to smooth the curve. The get that many hands I figured I needed somewhere around 300,000 to 500,000 hands.. Some say you really need close to 1 million... at 6 hour sessions 2 to 3 times a week it was between 10 to 20 years

    30 hands an hour with shuffle machine * 6 hours = 180 hands in one session
    180 hands * 2 sessions= 360 hands a week

    360*52=18,720 hands a year

    300,000/20,000 =15 years

    180 hands*3 sessions= 540 hands a week
    540 *52=28,080
    300,000/30,000=10 years..

    You can see that in Live play this is brutal.. The long run in live poker is years and years and years.. Even if you play 40 hours a week as a pro its still years and years..

    5 sesssions at 8 hours = 5*8*30=1200 hands a week
    1200*52=62,400
    3000,000/60,000= 5 years.!

    So you can see that a single player can be within the normal parameters of variance for a very very long time.. either good or bad variance..

    Wendy
    Wendy,

    While statistically speaking, one needs a VERY large sample size to accurately determine a statistical live (or online) winrate, I think that in most live games, at the lower levels especially, the play is just SO bad, that while a TRUE statistical winrate is nearly impossible to figure out, we can certainly tell within a much shorter period of time if we are generally a winning player or not based on results in the much shorter term.

    I think that most of us, who listen to stuff like Bart's podcasts and who post on forums and who think about the game, are so far ahead of most of the competition that we should be crushing the games. Variance might mean we have break even stretches, or even some losing stretches, but that the vast majority of stretches will be winning.

    I get in about 20 hours of poker per month, so I will likely never ever see the "long run," so I hope this studying, along with some reasonable bankroll management, will keep me far enough ahead of the other fishies that I can keep playing for a long time. LaughLaughLaugh
  • ThehammahThehammah Posts: 7,090Subscriber
    you arr aboslutely correct. I just wanted to make a point that dtreaks cam be much longer than anyone expected. I too hope that with all my recent studies that I can be a winning player for as ling as I wish to play. I know Bart talks to much of how bad the play is at the 2-5 and 5-5 level but the level below that inLA are where the truely horrible players are. I dont need to earn my living so while I continue to improve and build my bankroll I will stay there.

    Laugh

    Wendy
  • cl0r0x70 Posts: 27Member
    Tight players have a capped winrate somewhat dictated by the fact that they aren't in enough hands to really crush the top end of what's possible.

    Nevertheless, I feel "tight is right" when you're learning.

    To maximize your winrate, you really have to get involved in a lot more marginal situations and open your ranges up quite a bit, especially against weaker opponents.

    Fwiw, I don't think the style Bart advocates on his podcast is quite as tight as he's been portrayed. If you listen to his hands, you'll hear examples of light 3bets, loose opportunistic calls, etc. But he always has logic behind him whenever he gets out of line, which is of course the key.
  • ThehammahThehammah Posts: 7,090Subscriber
    You can always tells when I am using my ipad... all the misspelled words...lol..

    I like to think of myself and generally a tight player.. I like that, I think I get more folds because of this. It allows me to take down more small pots uncontested. That said I play alot more loose and agressive in pos and some of the biggest pots I have won were when I had a very tight image and winning image and I opened with some kind of implied odds hand. Since most opponents think I am tight they will not have me on those hands on the wrong range..

    I also like to think of myself and situationally aware and more recently as my confidence in my reading ability has gotten better I am willing to take those thiner EV spots. Here is a good example (I think).

    A guy raises utg and he has been pretty much splashing around. very loose and really has no clue.. another player who is basically a huge fish thats uber aggressive open shoves as he has been doing when he gets short shoves for 55.. he has a kindness for almost all Ax and Kx suited cards.. its folded to me in sb and I have pocket tens.. I look over at utgs stack and he has about 175..

    I think my range against the uber fish is at worst a flip and most likely I have him dominated. So I raise to 155.. bb folds and utg makes a comment about cracking aces with his hand and sticks it in...uber fish has 88 and I am not sure what the utg had as I had to turn my hand over on the river but I was good and won a really nice pot..

    I know that until recently I might have made this type of play before but I would definitely would not have been confident I was ahead. I am getting used to sticking my money in when its a great spot. I just would not have done that before.. maybe this isnt the best example but overall I realize that to be a winning player you can't just wait for sets against pf raisers.. You have to take some variance .. I just hope my hand reading will allow me to take some that are a bit better than most..

    great discussion!
  • chilidog Posts: 2,427Subscriber
    In the lowest live stakes, I think you are forced to play tight cuz you can't afford to pay $5 every hand that you win and still maintain a laggy style. The rake / drop (at least in California) is just too high. As you get into $500 buy in games you can start to open up your ranges and when you get into $1000 buy ins+, the rake obv has a diminishing affect on win rates.

    I think the accepted win rates for $5 big blind games are so wide because game conditions vary so greatly. If one player sticks to fri/sat nights and only plays 15 hrs per week, he may have a monster win rate, whereas people who primarily play during the week in nitty games might only be able to eek out 3BBs per hour. Also games at certain venues/casinos/card rooms have way different styles. Some games are full of old man coffees, and some are full of young laggy spewtards. It just depends.
  • ACK Posts: 428Subscriber
    I play pretty tight. I have never seen a good loose player that I think can win more than the best TAGs in my game. Just rarely make big mistakes post flop.

    I think people misjudge variance in live games. If you are a big winner your standard deviation per hour should be less than 10 times your hourly winrate. If I assume profit each hour follows a normal distribution, using my standard deviation and by adjusting my winrate from 5-10bb per hour, I have about a 10-20% chance of losing over 100 hours. I think this is the way that is most helpful to think about live variance. Convergence of winrate is just not a helpful measure for live poker.

    This year I've played 800 hours in 100bb 2/3 and 2/4 games that are raked at 10% up to $12 per hand (which is massive).

    http://i49.tinypic.com/33cynhh.png
  • ThehammahThehammah Posts: 7,090Subscriber
    I am not so sure about your assumptions there. I am not a statistician but the number of hands to even approach a smooth normal curve is just more than you can amass in one year.

    There are also other factors within the range of hands that can affect rather negatively your win rate. Do you win or lose bigger pots than you should? This is the variance that no seems to really talk about. I could win 90% of the hands I am supposed to win and lose only the 10% of hands that are much larger and I will be a losing player.. I am running only a little under EV as far as number of hands but WAY under EV as far as value.

    In previous years I have had a very very bad run in large pots. the larger the pot the less I won no matter how dominated I had my opponent. When these have happened a lot its pretty hard to overcome in your normal pot size wins. This is what drove me to up my game to the next level.

    I realized I wasn't betting thinly enough, I was also not winning enough as often in my winning hands to overcome this bad run. Even with all of what I have learned and applied I am still not sure I could have overcome losing with so many big pots lost.

    sorry 800 hours just isnt a material number of hands..

    Wendy
  • ShawnCrichley Posts: 11Member
    Andrew, nice win rate chart. Pretty consistent slope as you said. You can obviously guestimate a win rate. Don't forget to pay taxes on all that! Ha.
  • grindbler Posts: 131Member
    What Wendy is saying about the long run being much much longer than we tend to think echoes what a lot of reliable sources are also saying about it...
    if this is true, we never really arrive at a real concrete WR for the game we play in, because once we arrive at a large enough sample, the game has changed to the point where our data doesnt reflect the same game anymore...
    Leatherass has had break-even stretches for 100s of thousands of hands, and is a crushing player overall obv... live that would be a number of years full time play.
    breaking even over 100s of hours seems mind-numbing when it happens, but that's really just scratching the surface in terms of how bad one can potentially run, and be playing profitably...
    chilidog makes a great observation about the effect of the rake/drop in low stakes games, where it represents a bigger % of the money on the table.
    figure out roughly how much you are paying in rake based on your style over a period of time, and compare that to your profit that you take out the door with you.
    you can actually add them to get a true WR, and not just what you take out the door after expenses...(when you break-even you actually paid out your winnings in rake, and youre actually beating your opponents because it's not a zero-sum game).
    a more active style can have you paying out over half your earn in rake in raked games because youre winning more, yet smaller pots on average.
    that's kinda gross when you think about it, and gives you another good reason to tighten up at low stakes; 5/5, ect...
  • ACK Posts: 428Subscriber
    Wendy what I was getting at is that your hourly standard deviation converges a lot quicker than your hourly winrate (whether you won or lost the big pots wouldn't change you sd much). So you can use your standard deviation and a winrate interval (eg 5-10 bb/hour) to get an estimate on how likely you are to break even over x hours.

    You are also right about it not being normally distributed but as an approximation it is an okay estimate. I've played 2000+ hours in these games and I can say that a 10-20% chance of losing or breaking even over 100 hours is right on the mark.

    I would go as far to say that if you break even over 250+ hours in the games I play that you are doing something terribly wrong.

    Edit: I am a mathematician but not a statistician. I think it is a good stat to consider and it is a pretty decent estimate.
Sign In or Register to comment.