Medium stakes win rates

DesertCat · #1 09-20-2006, 11:20 AM

Sorry, I'm sure this has been posted many times before and y'all are tired of answering it, but the search engine was not my friend on this topic.

I play in a state where the max bet size is $150. So our version of NL is $5-$150 spread limit, which plays much like NL until the pots get big, then becomes a limit game. I've been doing very well in this game, and it looks like my win rate is around $40 per hour.

But I've been advised to check out the 20-40 (and up games) at my casino if I want to increase my win rate, and I've played a few short sessions there, and yesterday a full session. I dropped $500 in 45 minutes, and left after 5 hours up $1300. The game was very loose, and there were some terrible players. I lost a $600 pot with AA when a player called three bets cold with 10c8c, and stayed on a no pair no draw flop to win with a runner runner flush. I fell in love with 20-40 (and my new favorite player) right then.

So I'm considering specializing in this game, but worried about what a true win rate at medium stakes is, and also worried about variance. I don't seem to have long extended losing streaks at 5-150 (two or three sessions) and I'm afraid of the variance in limit. I'm bankrolled ok, in fact I have a full time job and poker is just for extra income, but I have a rule about not using my work income to supplement my poker bankroll.

So if anyone can answer, for a decent player (I'm not clarkmeister), what's a reasonable win rate in loose passive medium stakes games? What's a reasonable expectation for downswings and what's a reasonable bankroll size if it's self contained (not used for living expenses or anything but poker).

G_Dollaz · #2 09-20-2006, 02:12 PM

man, limit will have more variance then u can possibly imagine, anyone in this forum will vouch for that... as for winrate, what's a "decent" player, I mean I know what my winrates are @ the 30/60, etc, but I've never seen u play and have no idea how u compare to me and or anyone else... is 2bb/100 sustainable, easily playing live one table @ a time, no question about it... is it sustainable for u, I'm not sure... @ the same time, be prepared for ridiculous downswings, that's just the way that limit is.... gl

34TheTruth34 · #3 09-20-2006, 03:04 PM

The game you describe sounds a lot like the Foxwoods 20/40. $50 an hour should be easily sustainable for a decent player.

The variance depends greatly on the player, I would think. Personally, I don't seem to have the huge swings that others have in that game. But they are possible. I also don't play long sessions and don't play as aggressively as the nutcases or even the average 2+2er.

BTW, everyone here who can help DesertCat should respond, as he responds to pretty much every post and helps everyone in the Finance & Investing forum. He knows his stuff and is constantly giving his expertise and good advice away for nothing.

Ocho · #4 09-20-2006, 06:13 PM

DesertCat -

I'm actually making the move from 5-150 to 20-40 right now, myself. This is my first week at the 20-40 tables.

I've only played for a total of 9 hours so far. Like you, I'm worried about variance. My bankroll is at $12,000 right now and I assume that will be fine. However, after watching some of the 20-40 players, I've realized I'm going to have to learn to put up with huge swings. Aside from tolerating the variance, my biggest challenge right now is learning an entirely new set of players!

In the 9 hours I've played, I'm averaging over 5 BB per hour. I am well aware that 9 hours of play means nothing, but it's still frightening to see this kind of variance (and the way some of those guys play).

Anyway, I really don't have much info for you. But I'm interested to see what others have to say and how your move goes.

vmacosta · #5 09-20-2006, 10:10 PM

Let me offer some unsolicited advice:

To be totally honest, I think one ought to play a bunch of shorthanded internet limit holdem at some point in their career, particularly if they plan on playing in mid-high limit live games. The reason is that every night, as the numbers dwindle, you'll find extremely profitable situations if you're the only one left who is comfortable playing short. Plus, you'll grow accustomed to the variance and will be relieved that the passive nature of live games reduces it.

I use to play full ring limit live, then switched to 6max online and finally recently back to live. My level of comfort with swings and short play has allowed me to play in tons of profitable situations I used to previously forego (for instance I no longer feel the need to "lock up" a big win and I will stay and play when the mediocre players wanna play short).

But regardless, the lhe games at casino az are easily beatable by most solid players for a BB/hr or so if one is willing to wait out the swings.

Bill King · #6 09-21-2006, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The game you describe sounds a lot like the Foxwoods 20/40. $50 an hour should be easily sustainable for a decent player.

The variance depends greatly on the player, I would think. Personally, I don't seem to have the huge swings that others have in that game. But they are possible. I also don't play long sessions and don't play as aggressively as the nutcases or even the average 2+2er.

BTW, everyone here who can help DesertCat should respond, as he responds to pretty much every post and helps everyone in the Finance & Investing forum. He knows his stuff and is constantly giving his expertise and good advice away for nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah i agree with your FW comparison. high variance but those are the games you want.

i think spread limit is a great game. don't get down when you start having big swings though, because if you werent then that means you're not getting good action.

EZE · #7 10-03-2006, 06:46 PM

I can see why you love the loose balls at a 20-40 game but do you really wanna see the swings in your bankroll and steel yourself in a game that is that loose and that wild? Basically a discerning player would see you have gone way tight at the table of loose balls, and never give you any action on your good to great hands, and you become an easy steal target when you have less than optimal. Why not play 10-20 or 2-5 5-10NL and look for a better game, with moderatly better players ( Sometimes) and still with good play get your win rate.

Personally I play all 3, and my win rate this yr is 40-75 per hour at 10-20, 2-5 its about 35 per hour and 5-10 its about 45-100 (depends on the day).

thedustbustr · #8 10-03-2006, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2-5 its about 35 per hour and 5-10 its about 45-100 (depends on the day).

[/ QUOTE ]
this is about right for myself.

Greg P · #9 10-08-2006, 04:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why not play 10-20 or 2-5 5-10NL and look for a better game,

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately these games are not spread in AZ. I believe it jumps from 8-16 to 20-40 LHE and the gaming compact does not allow for any bet above $150 (hence no NL).

DesertCat,

The 20 at CA is very soft and I would think you'd be able to beat it for $40-50/hr. I think the real question is what would the variance be like and would it be worth it compared to the 5-150 game. I haven't played much live lately but in light of recent fristaments we may cross paths. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Out of curiousity (I may start playing regularly) what do you think is a suitable BR for 5-150? If you ran bad at the 20 you could always just move back to your sweetheart at a predetermined point.

GP

CardSharpCook · #10 10-09-2006, 05:13 AM

btwn 40-80 an hour. At least, that's what they tell me. You only get 30 hands an hour, but have a better chance of making good reads, people play too many hands, play them worse than online, you can make more "tough" folds, you think about each hand more. I've always wondered about this tho. It means live players are making 3bb/100-9bb/100. Is that really realistic?