1-2BB/h does it apply any longer?
I have to say that the low to mid limit games that I play on a regular basis (4 8 to 10 20, occasional 15 30) played 20-30h/wk over the past year are very beatable for 3-4bb/h on a consistant basis (yes, I keep records, no this isn't a short-term fluctuation). Anyone else finding that with the influx of new players that these games are no longer only profitable for 1-2bb/h, but much more?
Viva la WPT! :fish:
Viva la WPT! :fish:
Comments
Yes because it is true that more and more players are joining in the ranks, and there lack of real money experience will hamper their play. Plays such as calling to see the flop regardless of what the hole cards are is one of the most noticable feature about a new real money player. But there are also many others, such as not recognizing slow play, chasing way too often etc etc, so in a sense it does provide a more profitable game for long time players.
The "no" aspects is coming from that I have noticed some of players who used to play higher limits are now moving down every so often to take advantage of this "profitability".
There are always many angles to a situation, this one included. I'm sure there will be some among us that find this the case, while some don't. So it will vary from person to person.
Just my 2 cents.
and even if you have played this past year for 30 hours a week, 40 hands an hour, all 52 weeks...thats only 65k'ish hands...which is a rain drop in the ocean when dealing with win rates.
I'm talking about the live limit games around the GTA. And I know the stats, but I don't agree that you need 200,000 hands to know that a specific game is beatable for a certain amount per session if you are generally seated against 10 out of a pool of 20 or 30 players in every game you play.
For example, at one club that I've played at frequently over the past year I've had 4 losing sessions in the past year -- only 4. I know to you that this sounds statistically impossible, but it is simply that some games currently run from a small pool of players are that good these days. This is why I posted the question to the forum to see if others have noted this phenomenon.
:c: :d: :h:
I've had 5-6 losing session live at brantford/niagara this year (I don't write it all down because I simply am now that critical) out of around 30-35 visits.
A 'losing session' to me I consider a loss of 100$.
A 'winning session' to me I also consider at +100$
Of those 30-35 visits, 5-6 have been losses, while 20+ have been winning. The others are IMO just a day/night out.
Im talking about live games. I was merely trying to give you the benefit of more hands over the past year in order to give you a more significant sample size. But as youve pointed out, your probably not getting even that many hands at a live table, so your sample size is probably much smaller then the 65k (probably in the 40k range) I even mentioned. Making it much less reliable indicator of your winrate.
Im not saying you need to know how much a specific game is beatable for. What Im saying is that your assumption ("Games are beatable for 3-4BB an hour) is based on results ("Only 4 losing sessions this past year") that are very likely skewed because of it being such a small sample size.
Its quite the opposite. Because of your small sample size, it makes it extremely likely and totally statistically plausible. What your saying is akin to... "Hey, ive flipped a coin 4 times, and it came up heads every time...ergo...it seems that coin flipping is skewed towards heads...anybody else witness this phoenomenon?"
Running good for 50,000 hands is very easy.
Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt that your opponents are the fishiest of the fishiest from the biggest aquarium you can find...I would be shocked to find any game beatable for 3-4BB an hour or 7-8BB/100hands.
http://www.pokerforum.ca/forum/index.php?topic=57.0
http://www.pokerforum.ca/forum/index.php?topic=2721.0
LOL