[facialabuse]

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.