NLHE win rate for a good player in B&M setting

[aceinspace]

I am interested in finding out what a good (not great player) could earn (Big Bet/hr, i.e twice the Big Blind per hour) after the rakes and tips in a live casino NLHE given the following conditions:

Ring game (7 to 10 handed most of the time)
Players (a mix of fishes, semi-pros, loose-passive, loose-aggresive and no type is dominant: what I am trying to say is the game is beatable assuming the hero is one of the better players on the table.)
Rake: $3 ($1 if no flop)
Typical buy-in: 50xBig Blind with a cap of 100x
Hands dealt rate: 25/hour

What will the approximate win rate for:
$1-$2?
$2-$3?
$2-$5?

Thanks.

[Slowroller13]

Using my own stats, I end up with 3BB/hr. This is based on ~ 35 hands/hr, $3 max rake, $1 bad beat drop.

Of course I am just merely "good". I know many players who do 2-3 times better.

[keith123]

i'd say a good player can make 10BB/hour at 1/2 tables fairly easily. if the stack sizes are raised proportionately to the blinds, the BB/hour you can expect to make is similar at the slightly higher blinded tables, maybe a little less. a lot depends on what you mean by "good." the best players that actually play 1/2NLHE at a casino regulars are probably making at least 60-70 dollars (30-35BB) an hour, maybe more. there are probably a few players at every table that average around 20BB/hour.

[aceinspace]

The game has to be pretty soft to win 30 BB+ per hour consistently (although I don't know about the $1/$2 limit that well so it may be possible.) I think 15 to 20 BB is certainly doable up to $2/$5 if you are one of the the best players in that area for that limit.

[smbruin22]

i wanted to ask about this....

my best local B&M is 10% rake to $5, initial cap at 100BB (standard)...... i would think you need some pretty bad players to net 10BB in this game. and i'm finding many people have caught on to alot of the basics. good thing is that at 1/2, people can just play crazy for fun if they want to. but there aren't that many of them.

anyhow, those other win-rates cited seem really high. alot of fish have got much better in the last year.

[Gonso]

This is in "big blinds" not "big bets"...

1/2 NL with a 10% rake up to $4, somewhere between 2 and 6 bb/hr isn't a unreasonable goal, even after tips & rake, for a "good" player. At the same time, there are a number of players who are better than their opponents but can't beat the overhead.

30-35 per hour (either in big blinds or big bets) is just not happening as a sustained rate. I think there's also some confusion here about bb vs. BB.

Also, I don't see a vast difference in winrate between any of those low limit games.

[Abbaddabba]

As a general rule of thumb, the higher the estimate people give you in threads like these, the worse they are at poker.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
What will the approximate win rate for:
$1-$2?
$2-$3?
$2-$5?

[/ QUOTE ]

The sad truth is that except as an intellectual exercise, it doesn't really matter.

I'm going to take what I think is a nonstandard position on this one.

If you are good enough to beat these games for a decent amount, then you are going to be more interested in playing well to move up.

If you aren't able to beat these games, then it doesn't matter what a good player can beat it for.

When you are good enough to know that you are winning but running bad or playing like crap but running good, then you will already have the fundamental knowledge required to beat these low limit games.

Developing the hand reading, timing, and discipline skills is another matter entirely and will take much longer than most people want to believe. This is why the games 'stay good', as Mason put it.

Good players, I think, won't really care about their win rates in these games, other than to know that they are beating the game at all. I don't think that it's good to optimize your win rate for these low limit games.

I think that your time will be better spent looking at this from a different perspective.

Identify and capitalize on the mistakes being made by both you and your opponents. That is where all the money comes from. When you can spot enough mistakes in the players at the next limit up, then move up - forget about the winrate, except as a bankroll sizing requirement or a downswing checkup.

Dov

[Gonso]

I think OP might be trying to come up with an estimate to figure out what kind of BR requirements he'd need. If you're not accustomed to live games, for example, it's handy to have an idea of what kind of winrate is reasonable. Also good to know what SD's other people come up with.

[Dov]

You may be right about OP's intentions, but if that's the case, then he won't get what he's looking for anyway.

BR requirements have been discussed to death here and all anyone has to do is look them up.

The question was what a good players WR is. I think this is the wrong question no matter what, for the reasons I gave in my initial post.

To OP:

If you really are looking for BR requirements, and you are a good player, then use your own WR. If you don't have it, then you shouldn't consider yourself a good player.

If you are just trying to compare your results to other people's, then be aware that you are setting yourself up for major problems later on. Your attitude in this case is at best misguided.

Poker is not a comparative type of game. It is not useful to measure your results that way except in certain special circumstances. (Like the intellectual exercises I mentioned earlier.)

If that was not your original intention then you should probably rephrase your question and try again.

GL

Dov