Is 5K enough of a bankroll!?

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I usually play in a 1/2 game and win there at about a 65% clip. My standard buy in is 100 and I usually book on average a $25 dollar win in about a 2-3 hour span.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your win rate is fairly meager. At 1-2 NL online, good players average $25-30 an hour. While live play gets 50% of the hands an online table gets, good live players will make a similar amount per hour due to reads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd agree that 25-30 an hour is typical of a player I'd consider "good" at these tables. There are definitely players making 2-3 times that much that play 1/2 NL regularly as well. But if you are making 25-30/hour you'll be in top 2-4 best guys at the table.

My guess is that there are very few people making only 10 dollars an hour at these tables. I think most people either make significantly more than that (consistent winners) or they are long-term losers. The only ones making as low as 10 bucks an hour consistently are weak-tight players, that can beat the total morons, and stay out of pots with the good players. It can't be very stimulating playing that way, and the only regulars I see with that strategy are seniors. Young people might try it, but usually they don't have it in them to be that big of a wimp and play a lot.

[binions]

Winrates are important, of course, in determining how much bankroll you need because they affect your variance.

A good player can get away with 17 buy-ins ($5000 for a 1-3 game). A barely winning player is subject to wider swings, and needs more bankroll.

[GiantBuddha]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that there are very few people making only 10 dollars an hour at these tables. I think most people either make significantly more than that (consistent winners) or they are long-term losers. The only ones making as low as 10 bucks an hour consistently are weak-tight players

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this at all. There's a lot of break even players out there, and probably just as many (if not more) who win at a small rate or lose at a small rate. Someone could play loose and aggressive and not have a huge win rate just because they're not that much better than the rest of the players in the game. The notion that you're going to win more simply by playing looser makes no sense.

[deuces allin]

number of tables is the topic i have seen left out... $10 an hour per table is still a very nice average even for very good players at $1 $2 NL.

I agree 5k should easily cover your shot at 1-3 if you lose that you are not good enough or are super super unlucky....i think the biggest swing i have ever taken was about 8 buy ins at 1-2 over 4 days.

[keith123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that there are very few people making only 10 dollars an hour at these tables. I think most people either make significantly more than that (consistent winners) or they are long-term losers. The only ones making as low as 10 bucks an hour consistently are weak-tight players

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this at all. There's a lot of break even players out there, and probably just as many (if not more) who win at a small rate or lose at a small rate. Someone could play loose and aggressive and not have a huge win rate just because they're not that much better than the rest of the players in the game. The notion that you're going to win more simply by playing looser makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh you didn't read what i wrote. i wasn't suggesting that everyone would win more if they loosened up, but only that from what i've seen, i'd guess that there are hardly any players who REGULARLY play at the casino that make less than 10 dollars an hour on average.

granted, there probably are some high variance breakeven types that i am not seeing, but i really believe that 1/2NL casino tables are so easy to beat, that these types that win 1000 dollars one day and lose 1000 the very next day, won't end up continuing to be a regular too long, especially since we are talking about people playing a fairly high amount of hours per week, clearly substituting some working hours. it is pretty stressful for a person who only makes 10 dollars an hour (20,000 a year if he works 40 hours a week) to lose 1000 dollars once or twice a week, or maybe more some weeks. i just don't see them sticking around very long for that kind of rate.

senior citizens are usually fully retired, and can spend a lot of hours breaking even. however those older players that are happy breaking even, usually don't gamble much and have very low variance. they might never lose more than 200 in day. they probably can't afford to be consistent losers unless we are talking about only a couple dollars an hour, but having a nice pass time and avoiding loneliness and also making 10 bucks an hour is pretty nice to them. not the case for most casino goers. and i do think these seniors would be able to increase their winrates if they loosened up a little, but it isn't worth suffering through the variance or the tilt that comes from it.

for non-retired people, everyone playing a lot of hours at a casino is doing so as their primary job. they may or may not have a separate part time job. 10 bucks an hour doesn't cut it, so players shoot for 20+. some players get there, some players exceed it, but most players play worse than they are capable of in order to try to make enough to live on. and those players pay the winners salaries. the 10 dollar an hour regular trying to make a living at poker will either try moving up, give up, or switch up their style to either become a reasonable money winner at 1/2 or blow their bankroll trying to be.

[GiantBuddha]

I did read what you wrote. Your second explanation is much clearer, though, and I understand where you're going with it. I still have trouble believing that there are so many $25/hour winners in a $1-2 NL game, but the ones that stick around probably are beating it for more than $10/hour. Aren't there people with regular jobs who play as a hobby, but are talented and study the game, but aren't good enough to crush it? Most of these people beating the game for $25/hour are probably running good. When they run bad for a while, their win rate will come back to earth. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't play where you do.

[keith123]

yeah, maybe saying that good players can make 20-25 dollars an hour is a little misleading. i guess i mean that if you are good enough to play poker for a living at 1/2NL, you should be making close to that much on average, and there are definitely a significant number of people that do so, some making a lot more that $25. you are definitely right that it takes a while to know what your true winrate is though. and there are also most definitely some semi-regular players that play as a hobby and average about 10 dollars an hour or so, and don't play like an eldery person. but these guys are more likely once a week types, not 40 hour a week types like the OP wants to be. i just can't imagine someone playing at a table so very easy to beat, and settling for grinding it out barely above minimum wage for 40 hours a week as his main source of income, especially if he has big swings.

[WMB]

5 grand should be fine for that game.

[e_phemeral]

$5k is plenty to play $1-3 NL with $300 buy-in. IMO, as long as you are a good winning player who does not tilt (or keeps tilt to an absolute minimum), it would be pretty hard to get cold-decked for $5k playing $1-3 NL. But even good winning players will go on streaks of losing 2, 3, 4 plus buyins in a single session. For that reason, I suggest buying in short, for like $200. Then you have 20 buyins. Also, perhaps play with a stop-loss, like 4 buyins ($800). If you lose $800 in one session, call it quits and come back to fight another day.