Texas Hold Em

GeorgeD

Well-Known Member
#1
What kind of bankroll and what kind of EV can a decent poker player expect playing live games? Is there as much variance as found in BJ?

My guess is that after the rake it's tough to make money long term for all but the best player. Am I right?
 

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#3
How would one answer this? The same player that is a shark against a bunch of beginners on Monday may be a minnow against stronger players on Friday.
I'd imagine a good player can easily find his level and do pretty nicely, as long as he doesn't get greedy.
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#4
Limit or No Limit?

If you're playing low limit, I'd say 1-2 BB/hr depending on the rake. Others will claim as much as 5 BB/hr, but I think that's horse poop. The variance is smaller than blackjack; while I have no math to back it up, I'd say somewhere around 1/3 of a blackjack bankroll for the same ROR (where 1 BB = 1 unit). Keep in mind that most poker games are dealt slower (50-100 hands/hr) than most blackjack games (100-200 hands/hr), so there's a discrepancy between the EV (which is per hand) and the win per hour.

I've played about 100 hours of poker. I went down about 100 BB in the first 10 hours (mostly timidness due to being new to the game), but now I'm up about 150 BB.

I have never played a higher limit or no limit.
 

cardcounter0

Well-Known Member
#5
Variance is much lower in Poker, therefore bankroll requirements are low.

Limit Texas Hold 'Em bankroll is measured in "Big Bets". 300 big bets is considered the correct "kelly" bank. So if you are playing $5/$10 blinds, the kelly ROR bankroll would be $6000. Playing low limit $2/$4 you should have $2400 bankroll.

No-Limit Texas Hold 'Em bankroll (which actually has lower variance) is usually measured in buy-ins, with 10 buy-ins being a good measure of thumb. So to play $1/$2 $200 max buy-in no limit, $2000 would be a good bank.

Win rates in bigger tougher games is 2 "big bets" per hour, but with the no-fold 'em terrible players seen in anything under $6/$12 limit, 6 to 8 bbs per hour is certainly possible.

With "bad" players at $4/$8 limit, you could make $80 an hour with a bankroll of $4800, and you would not really be stretching reality that much (if you can keep the fish coming, and you are actually skilled at the game).
 

GeorgeD

Well-Known Member
#6
Thanks guys.

Sounds like besides skill it comes down to finding the games with less experienced players. I would think that's easiest in a touristy town like Vegas ........ but then I suppose a really skilled player knows how to look like a sucker while he's reeling it the real suckers. Kind of like a good cover act.
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#7
cardcounter0 said:
With "bad" players at $4/$8 limit, you could make $80 an hour with a bankroll of $4800
I call horse poop.

$80/hr at $4-$8 is ridiculously high; only once in my career have I even seen VARIANCE that high, forget having an EV that high.
 
#8
callipygian said:
I call horse poop.

$80/hr at $4-$8 is ridiculously high; only once in my career have I even seen VARIANCE that high, forget having an EV that high.
I don't know how many times I have to say this... but play online... online is +EV compared to live... no matter how you slice the pie... even if the better players are online, you can still get more hands per hour.

Volume in limit cash games is more important than quality. If you become a decent poker player and can multi-table without losing too much EV from multi-tabling, you stand to make a lot of money online. It's what I do, and it's what any serious pro does. Online limit poker is one of the most consistent gambling incomes out there today AFAIK
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#9
BlodiaInc said:
I don't know how many times I have to say this... but play online
The OP asked specifically about live games, but I agree that if the laws of your country allow you to play online, that's the better way to play poker.
 
#10
Speaking of which I am quite confused on the laws of the US regarding internet poker. I was under the impression all online gambling was illegal but recently I started an account on poker stars to play with play money and discovered you can indeed play with real money. So I deposited some and have been playing super low stakes with actual money. Is this legal? Is it some poker loophole? Why can I do that but I can't play blackjack online. Stupid US and their confusing laws and what the jimineys. Heh heh.
 

cardcounter0

Well-Known Member
#11
$80/hr at $4-$8 is ridiculously high; only once in my career have I even seen VARIANCE that high, forget having an EV that high.
And that career from your previous post is 100 hours, right?

After you get 10 years under your belt, and you get in a typical weak-tight, calling station, no-fold 'em $4/$8 hold 'em game, let me know what your win rate is.
 

N&B

Well-Known Member
#12
On-line Poker... well, before 10/06 I did a lot of $5 tournaments, mostly OMAHA H/L. This is also a good way to play, as its usually pot-limit. I could get $$ in these less-populated tournies. Texas... Under $5 tournies are a shark tank. I noticed my cash level to be around 5000 players or less in the $1 stuff, and 2000 players in $2 to $5 stuff. But hey, we're talkin 80% on a dollar or $2. Omaha H/L was better at $5 level grabbing several final tables from a field of 500. Best was 3rd twice.

I like the Brick and Mortar cheap stuff 2/4 or 3/6 fixed. Nothin much to write about.
I do wish POKER TOURNAMENTS were legal on the net in the USA. Not many B&M's can hold a tourny with green chip or less buy-in... if any.

Bring-in 100x Big Blind.
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#13
cardcounter0 said:
And that career from your previous post is 100 hours, right?

After you get 10 years under your belt, and you get in a typical weak-tight, calling station, no-fold 'em $4/$8 hold 'em game, let me know what your win rate is.
All I play are no-fold'em games, and actually, from your description, I'm going to even counter-challenge whether you've actually played one yourself.

The hallmark of no-fold'em is LOOSE passive players, not tight passive: 5-7 to the flop and at least one caller all the way to the river. You need to win every hand with your cards because you can't bluff anyone. That's why winning a low limit, no-fold'em game may actually be harder than winning a higher limit game - you need to legitimately win every pot.

Let's say that you were somehow able to forsee every hand; you only entered when you were 100% sure you were going to win. You'd win 10% of the pots, with say 7 people to the flop, 3 to the turn, 2 to the river, and 2 to showdown. That's 9 BB per pot, 8 BB minus the rake and tip, and a net win of 5 BB. At 40 pots/hr, that's a win rate of 20 BB/hr. It'll actually be about 18 BB/hr when you subtract the blinds.

Now, let's assume you're only psychic after the flop comes out: you only play the top 15% of hands pre-flop, but that those capture 75% of all the hands that you will eventually win. So you actually win half of all the pots you enter (7.5% entered and won, 7.5% entered and lost, 82.5% not entered and would have lost, 2.5% not entered and would have won). Your win rate is now +15 BB/hr from entering and winning, -3 BB/hr from entering and losing, -2 BB/hr from the blinds. That's the 10 BB/hr you're claiming.

Winning 10 BB/hr is a ludicrously high win rate. But don't just take my word for it. After all, I'm just a noob. :rolleyes:

http://www.rgpfaq.com/rake-low-limit.html

rec.gambling.poker FAQ said:
So, a good player in a weak enough game can achieve a pre-expense win rate of 1.5 BB / hr and up, perhaps exceeding 4 BB / hour in extremely favorable circumstances.
 

cardcounter0

Well-Known Member
#14
The hallmark of no-fold'em is LOOSE passive players, not tight passive: 5-7 to the flop and at least one caller all the way to the river.

I agree. Please search my post and show where I said tight passive. I said weak-tight. Do you know the difference? (hint: those are the type of players that limp in with pocket aces because aces never win, check/call check/call and then check/raise the river because they have the nuts, etc.)

That's 9 BB per pot, 8 BB minus the rake and tip

WOW, you sure do tip a lot, no wonder you aren't making any money. In the $4/$8 game I gave as an example 1 BB going to rake and tip would be $16. Since rake is usually capped at $4 with a $1 jackpot drop, you give the dealer a $11 tip when you win a pot?

A good win rate for the game you describe is 2 BB per hour. If you know how to bet for value, raise instead of call, know when to pump a pot, how to induce bets on the river so you can raise rather then just bet, etc. you can CRUSH the game instead of just win. With such loose bad players that you describe, a good player can CRUSH game not just WIN. 5 BBs are totally realistic.

It'll actually be about 18 BB/hr when you subtract the blinds.

Twice in your calculations, you subtract the blinds. With so many limpers, what are you folding in the blinds? You just can't write the blinds as a loss, chances are you are going to win a lot of hands from the blinds as opposed to hands when you have position.

I would suggest staring with Small Stakes Hold 'em: Winning Big With Expert Play by Mason Malmuth, Ed Miller, David Sklansky . The link you have posted is from 2000. That win rate was good for the year 2000 players. The year 2008 players have easier pockets to pick.
 

cardcounter0

Well-Known Member
#15
That's why winning a low limit, no-fold'em game may actually be harder than winning a higher limit game

WOW. Just WOW. That statement is equal to -- To put things in blackjack terms -- you should not increase your bets in high counts, because it is more likely the dealer will have a Ten card up (which will almost always be a 20), and will get a lot more blackjacks.
:eek:

Your quoting of 2 BBs/hr win rate was the old standard, when poker was a bunch of old retired men sitting around a table folding and only betting with the nuts. With today's players, raised watching ALL-IN tournaments on TV, and wild loose internet whiz kids, it is possible to get much more out of the flush chasing, hoping for the gut shot, modern players.

Again, in blackjack terms, it is like someone describing a Big Player scenario crushing a shoe game, and you saying no way you could last spreading like that and quoting something from the 1962 edition of "Beat the Dealer".
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#16
cardcounter0 said:
search my post and show where I said tight passive. I said weak-tight. Do you know the difference?
If you think "tight passive" and "loose passive" mean the same thing, you're deluded. Players at $4/$8 tables are not tight in any respect, no matter what your definition of weak and/or passive are.

cardcounter0 said:
In the $4/$8 game I gave as an example 1 BB going to rake and tip would be $16.
No, it'd be $8. Are you, by any chance, confusing $4/$8 with $8/$16?

cardcounter0 said:
Since rake is usually capped at $4 with a $1 jackpot drop, you give the dealer a $11 tip when you win a pot?
You are correct in a general sense that a $3 tip (not $11) is still pretty big; I rounded figures to keep the math simple. If you want to nitpick what was an arbitrary number of people staying in to begin with, then just pretend I said 6 to the flop instead of 7 and 3. That gives a 8.5 BB win and then the rake and tip is 0.5 BB for the same net win of 5 BB/pot won.

cardcounter0 said:
A good win rate for the game you describe is 2 BB per hour.
So we agree, more or less (I contend 2 BB/hr is still high, I'd say 1 BB/hr is more accurate, but for the time being, we'll treat 2 BB/hr as the "agreed" figure).

The only question is then whether the games in real life resemble my game or yours.

cardcounter0 said:
If you know how to bet for value, raise instead of call, know when to pump a pot, how to induce bets on the river so you can raise rather then just bet, etc. you can CRUSH the game instead of just win. With such loose bad players that you describe, a good player can CRUSH game not just WIN. 5 BBs are totally realistic.
Let's calculate how much raising will affect the "agreed" win rate.

6 to the flop, 3 to the turn, 2 to the river, 2 to showdown = 8.5 BB's, minus 0.5 BB for rake and tip = 8 BB pot, +5 BB win per pot. Hopefully, now that you know what a big bet is, you agree with that.

40 pots an hour and about 20% of hands played means 8 hands/hr. If we assume that lost pots cost you about 1 BB on average, that means you're winning 1.67 pots/hr and losing 6.33 pots/hr to make +2 BB/hr.

If each of the pots is doubled now and ignoring people who fold because you raised, you now win +10.5 BB per pot won (17 BB pot - 0.5 BB for rake - 6 BB of yours) and lose -2 BB per pot lost, for a win rate of +4.8 BB/hr. If 1 person who would otherwise see the flop and then fold drops out pre-flop because you raised, your win rate drops to +4.0 BB/hr (+5/3*10-19/3*2); if 2 people do that, your win rate drops to +3.2 BB/hr!

In other words, even if you could make +2 BB/hr with the game I described (and I contest that), you would barely make +5 BB/hr even when you assume nobody folds because you raised!

Even from your unrealistic starting point, your goal of "crushing" the game at 5 BB/hr cannot be achieved, much less the 10 BB/hr you first proposed.

cardcounter0 said:
Twice in your calculations, you subtract the blinds. With so many limpers, what are you folding in the blinds?
Because in that scenario you are psychic and folding every hand you know you're not going to win. And that means 90% of the time, you give up your big blind, and 90% of the time, you give up your small blind.

I would suggest reading more carefully and understanding that my scenarios are not meant to represent what I really think - they are to demonstrate how your numbers are clearly wildly exaggerated. I'm slanting every number in your favor to demonstrate that even psychics can't achieve the win rate you claim.

I would also suggest actually playing a game or two of limit hold'em at a casino before posting. You can say what you want about my experience, but I think it's pretty clear that I've spent more time than you at the tables we are discussing.
 

cardcounter0

Well-Known Member
#17
sorry, but if you don't realize that a BB refers to "Big Bet" and not "Big Blind", then I think YOU need to step back and get a grip. In a $4/$8 game, 1 BB = $16.

I'm really not going to debate your imaginary scenarios, when you don't even have the basic terminology of the game down. One more time: I never said "tight passive" and I never used the term "loose passive". I said WEAK-TIGHT.

Oh, and in a calling station, multiple limper game like you describe (and like most low-limit limp fest games are), I almost never enter a pot without raising preflop. Raise preflop or fold. Yes, if I have T8o two from the button, I raise !!! :eek: So, most of your imaginary numbers are off by 2x in the first place. You are correct, if you are merely limping, betting, calling, and hoping to have the best hand at the river, you are not going to achieve these win rates.

I am not going to debate win rates with a n00b, there are too many well documented 10,000 hands samples showing win rates of 5 "BIG BETS" or more to even argue about it. Like I said, pick up a copy of Small Stakes Hold 'em: Winning Big With Expert Play by Mason Malmuth, Ed Miller, David Sklansky . You might consider this the KO Blackjack of poker, and then you can move on your way to the poker version of the ShuffleTracker's Cookbook. :laugh:
 

callipygian

Well-Known Member
#18
cardcounter0 said:
sorry, but if you don't realize that a BB refers to "Big Bet" and not "Big Blind", then I think YOU need to step back and get a grip. In a $4/$8 game, 1 BB = $16.
Sorry, but if YOU don't realize that $4/$8 limit refers to the small bet and big bet, then it's abundantly clear you simply haven't played this game.

"$1/$2 no limit": small blind = $1, big blind = $2.
"$4/$8 limit": small blind = $2, big blind = small bet = $4, big bet = $8

:rolleyes:

cardcounter0 said:
I never said "tight passive" and I never used the term "loose passive". I said WEAK-TIGHT.
Then explain why you agreed with me when I said the table was full of loose passives.

:rolleyes:

And in case you try to edit your post ...

cardcounter0 said:
The hallmark of no-fold'em is LOOSE passive players, not tight passive: 5-7 to the flop and at least one caller all the way to the river.

I agree. Please search my post and show where I said tight passive. I said weak-tight. Do you know the difference?
Friggin' SAVED for posterity.

cardcounter0 said:
I am not going to debate win rates with a n00b
Because it's doubly embarassing when you're caught making mistakes that not even n00bs should make?

Be honest - have you played even a single hand of low limit hold'em at a casino?
 

cardcounter0

Well-Known Member
#19
Originally Posted by cardcounter0
The hallmark of no-fold'em is LOOSE passive players, not tight passive: 5-7 to the flop and at least one caller all the way to the river.

I agree. Please search my post and show where I said tight passive. I said weak-tight. Do you know the difference?

Friggin' SAVED for posterity.

GOOD SAVE IT. FRAME IT ON THE WALL. I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO SHOW ME IN THE ORIGINAL POST THAT I MADE THAT YOU RESPONDED TO, WHERE I USED THE PHRASE "TIGHT PASSIVE". PLEASE CUT AND PASTE IT. SHOW ME. YOU MAKE UP WORDS THAT YOU THINK I USED, THEN ARGUE THAT I AM WRONG.

One More Time: SHOW ME IN MY ORIGINIAL POST WHERE I USED THE PHRASE "TIGHT PASSIVE".

In case you missed it: CAN YOU FIND IN MY ORIGINAL POST WHERE I SAID "TIGHT PASSIVE"? AFTER YOU FIND THAT, THEN YOU CAN ARGUE ABOUT IF IT IS CORRECT. HAHAHA.

"$1/$2 no limit": small blind = $1, big blind = $2. (BIG BET = $4).
"$4/$8 limit": small blind = $2, big blind = $4, (big bet = $8)
sorry, but the term "small bet" really isn't used. SB, BB (big blind) and when talking win rates or bankroll BB (big bets).

SORRY BUT TWICE THE BIG BLIND IS CONSIDERED A "BIG BET" AND THAT IS WHAT THE "BB" REFERS TO WHEN WIN RATES ARE DISCUSSED. USUALLY STATED AS BBs/100. Which is another source of confusion. When I state win rates, it is per 100 hands. In blackjack, 100 hands is usually considered to be 1 hour, so the win rate between 100 hands and hours is interchangable. In live poker, 100 hands is probably 2.5 hours of play. In poker it makes sense to track by # of hands, because with different dealers the hands per hour is so variable.


Anyways, you can quibble over terms, and put words in my mouth, and make up your own definitions. Anyone with experience, or knowledge of the game, will get a huge laugh out of your "lower limit games are harder to beat because so many people call all the way to the river" :)laugh: , sorry that still makes me laugh) or in a previous post, that variance is higher in a no-limit game than a limit game.

If you think those things are true, it is a good sign of how much you do not know. If you would like to learn more about the game, post questions here, I can give the CORRECT answers, not make up terms or give opinions based on 100 hours of play.

And again: Small Stakes Hold 'em: Winning Big With Expert Play by Mason Malmuth, Ed Miller, David Sklansky is the place to start.
 
Top