BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

I do about 45 minutes of actual work in my day job, so today I found myself making a spreadsheet of possible bb/100 rates and how much total profit you could generate playing different amounts of time in a week (all limit).
I think my model is a little optimistic-it has to be, or else everyone would be ridiculaballer. I may be overestimating the availability of games, and I'm including avg. rakeback. Even though BB/100 =/= BB/hr., I'm multi-tabling whenever possible so I think it evens out to approximately the same rate.

Some conclusions:
A low-stakes player averaging 1 BB/100 profit at 2/4, 3/6, and 5/10, playing 15 hours a week of 2/4, 30 of 3/6, and 15 of 5/10 makes 2875.50/month, and 34008 pre-tax yearly. This seemed reasonable.

Playing the same amount of hours a week at a more reasonable winrate of 2 BB/100 makes 55k+ yrly. (not exactly double 1st figure b/c im including rakeback).
This brought to mind a 2nd (and 3rd) question-with this kind of winrate:
a) can you refute the claim that you can't make a living wage playing under 10/20?
b) given that this is totally manageable with a 40/k 40/hr. week day job-and you have virtually zero risk-is my utility greater doing this than if I ever moved up?

Also ridiculous is looking at hi-end winrates that are still within the distributions of a lot of players on here (if they're honest). A player making 3 bb/100 and playng 6000 hands a week each (is that equatable to 60 hours?) at 5/10, 8/16, 10/20, and 15/30 would make 14.5k+ WEEKLY, 65317 monthly w/rakeback, and 782k+ yearly...
I looked at those numbers and was obv. like wt-monogloid-f
but as far as I can tell my math is on-point regardless of a little unconscious optimism.

Can Buzz as well as any other math-head confirm that I'm seeing this right cause im thinking why the f would I ever play plo 8 again.

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

Beating limit for 3BB/100 at those levels may well be impossible. But in general, I would agree that an excellent, disciplined player who played 60/hrs week at the higher limits could make more money than someone working a regular job. But the same is true of PLO8 (and NLHE, and probably any game where there's a big enough player base), so... what was your point again?

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

op was question, no point to make, checking math-
do you think 3 bb/100 is sustainable at 2/4, 3/6, 5/10?
is there enough of a regular game at the 3 above limits to actually play 60 hours at each level?
does 60 hours played=6000 hands?

I'm trying to get a handle on the mathematical foundation of my f-ing around

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
....playng 6000 hands a week each (is that equatable to 60 hours?)....

[/ QUOTE ]facialabuse - I don't know. (Because I don't know how many hands you play per hour).

To me poker is a card game you play to pleasantly pass the time or have fun with friends and you keep score with money.

I imagine some people think of poker as a money game you play with cards. (And that's probably a better outlook if your primary goal is to win money).

To each his own. My own on-line play has intentionally been very limited. Multi-tabling just doesn't appeal to me as a career choice. And my cardiologist tells me big bet poker is too stressful.

And to me the pain of losing far exceeds the joy of winning.

I like to get together with a group of friends for a friendly, private game. I enjoy the camaraderie, the excitement of seeing my cards, and the challenge of out-thinking my opponents. I take that attitude with me when I play in a public casino.

Playing primarily for money simply doesn't appeal to me. I don't see anything wrong with earning a living by playing professional poker; I'd simply rather do something else to earn a living.

But more power to you.

($2875.50/month actually amounts to $34,506/year).

$34008 or $34506 pre-tax yearly sounds very do-able. (I think you can earn more than that and have lots of other benefits as well with a different career choice).

Buzz

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

O8 is so much slower than LHE, I think a lot of your estimates are wildly optimistic. I was playing only LO8 for a while and was having a lot of trouble playing 1k hands/day.

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
op was question, no point to make, checking math-
do you think 3 bb/100 is sustainable at 2/4, 3/6, 5/10?
is there enough of a regular game at the 3 above limits to actually play 60 hours at each level?
does 60 hours played=6000 hands?

I'm trying to get a handle on the mathematical foundation of my f-ing around

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe sustainable if you play shorthanded, and practice good game selection, however that's going to cut into the number of hands you play. I don't really know though, I don't play limit consitantly, just when I see a good game.

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

There is a problem with those estimates, but Im too tired to figure out what it is at the moment.

edit..nvm [censored] playing 60 hours a week. I wish I had that kind of time.

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
O8 is so much slower than LHE, I think a lot of your estimates are wildly optimistic. I was playing only LO8 for a while and was having a lot of trouble playing 1k hands/day.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? how many tables and how long? If you 4 table I find you can get 1,000 in within 3 hours.

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

the smallest example I listed supposes a total 1500 hands a week 2/4, 3000 3/6, and 1500 5/10

thats pretty realistic, right?

if 1k hands=approx. 3 hours, we're looking at 18 hours?
so playing 54 hours a week=18k hands? 18k hands/week is close to my original "balla" example (782k)

also when I used to multi low-stakes plo getting 10k hands in roughly 40 hours/week was more common than not-but I understand limits slower

ahh [censored] nm. not trying to be sarcastic, but 1k hands/hr. 4-tabling supposes 80+ hands per table per hour on average...i dont think this exists
if you six-table, mb u can avg. 1k hands/3 hrs.
however, my original projection supposes that
a) you multi-table applicable small limits whenever possible and
b) 100 hands/hr. across all limits, so if I 4-table I only need to avg. 25 hands per table, which is obv. low
So-whats an avg. low-limit hands/hour. Obv. short-handed is much higher than fr, im guessing fr on avg. is 35-40 and sh is 70+. Anybody want to join in my random guesstimating?

Re: BB/100/hour projections-is everyone banking this?
 

Didn't really read the thread, but yes, you can make very good money (by real world standards) playing almost any form of online poker at fairly low limits.

The only qualifier I would add is that in my experience, almost nobody actually achieves the theoretical potential of low or mid-limit grinding. People basically just burn out before they can play 8 tables for 40 hours a week for a year.

But like I said the money is still good. Probably not nearly as good as pre-UIGA, but good enough.

I used to get into arguments about this on RGP several years ago in the early days of online poker and people would always try to throw a monkey-wrench into my figures.

I remember Andrew Prock used the weird a priori argument that "anyone who can make $300k a year playing online poker could make a lot more in the real world". I guess the implication was that nobody was making that much, and if they were they were just wasting their time anyway.

Ah fond memories.