pokerJAH;287634 wroteSo looking at your stats, your averaging about a $300 profit in the winning sessions (excluding the $800+ win). If you are playing Q3, J6, etc. and winning these monster pots, why such a low profit on average? If you excluding these 'biggest pots' you are winning with garbage hands, are you a losing player with other decent starting hands? Not try to past judgement, but if the players are that bad, you would think you could squeek out a bigger profit on average than $300, especially with each player sitting with $700-$800 on average at the table.
Don't really think $50/hr is substainable in the long run playing $1/$2. You definitely have the confidence (or should I say ignorance) to be able to maintain that winrate.
Like to see an updated graph after about another 100 hours of play.
You think a $60/h win rate at primarily 1/2 is low now? Didn't you initially respond that cash games were rarely beatable due to high variance? If you can't beat live cash games then you are either playing in a ridiculously tough game or need to re-evaluate your game.
(
"It is hard to make consistent money playing cash games really due to a high rake and variance IMO.")?
I don't even know what that means and you haven't explained your thoughts on that -- they are counter to any view on poker that I have ever heard. Live cash games are hands down the easiest way to make money at poker, period. This isn't even debatable by any experienced player. This is why 5/10 live is compared to 0.5/1 online, etc, etc.
The point of this thread was to point out why 1/2 in Alberta is beatable for extraordinarily high rates, not to compare it to overall 1/2 rates across the country. I understand that small 1/2 games are beatable for much smaller sums...in fact, that was the point of the entire thread.
I do feel that $50/h is sustainable at these games for a very good player. Will I ever have enough hours to prove it statistically? Likely not. Am I happy that I make ok money playing a game I like, when I like and for the amount of time that I like? Sure. I've heard a very good and well respected midstakes live pro from the Bay Area state that a decent winrate is 3x the standard opening raise and that makes a lot of sense. The blinds are really irrelevant if the stacks are deep. In these 1/2 games at a good table this is usually $15-$20, so $50 should be a good and sustainable winrate.
What is "the long run"? I have been doing this part-time over 3 years in Alberta and for 8 years overall. I already explained this only represents 9 months or so of full-time hours. Who with a full-time job is playing full-time live pro hours? I can only summarize my thoughts and results based on experience of 4 years part-time play in Toronto, 3 years in Alberta, 1 year in WA state including samplings of cash games in Vegas, Fallsview, GBH, Brantford, NY State, etc. I feel that the hours I have logged make me a pretty good judge of a soft game. I'm pretty confident that my views are well informed and not ignorant on this subject.
I can update after another 20 sessions or so, but I have provided a much longer time period of results above which would make the next 20 sessions less relevant over the large sample. The graph was meant to be a small example as to how soft the games are here, not a definitive statement of my winrate.