Winrate at an extremely juicy, loose passive live game

DonovanParker · #1 01-02-2007, 09:10 PM

A new 20/40 limit hold'em table has been running at the local casino for about 2 or 3 months. The overwheelming majority of the regulars there are very weak, most of them almost perfectly matching the model of a loose-passive textbook player type, who has become so rare at the medium stakes on the internet.

It's a FR table with 9 - 11 players, where 6 - 8 usually limp preflop (sometimes with hands like k4 offsuit in EP, etc.) and some players call down with middle pairs even when it's 3-handed at the river, etc.

There is no doubt that this game is extremely juicy, but since there are only about 20-25 hands dealt per hour, my question is, how big a winrate is sustainable for a strong player (who is capable of adjusting close to optimally, etc.) in the long run under these conditions?

Am I completely unrealistic when I assume about 7-9BB/100 hands to be possible?

CardSharpCook · #2 01-02-2007, 09:19 PM

good live players talk about being able to make 3BB per hour at tables like these, which is about what you're hoping for. My online experience is that such win rates are easy to talk about, impossible to achieve. I mean, you're winning 8 or 9 hands in 100. How are you getting 8 or 9 BB out of that?

TommyO · #3 01-02-2007, 09:35 PM

You win 8-9 hands per 100? I am a LOT lower than that. I figure that in 100 hands I might see 25-30 flops and of those hands I maybe win 5-6. Either you play a lot more hands than I do, or you flop good, or you're a much better player than me (which is very possible). I am winning around ~1BB/100 but to be honest I am having trouble finding really good games these days.

private joker · #4 01-02-2007, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am winning around ~1BB/100 but to be honest I am having trouble finding really good games these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, find a better casino. 1bb/100 means about .3bb/hr, which means you're basically breaking even after tips/expenses, etc.

I have yet to find a live LHE game at the 30 level or below that doesn't seem beatable for at least 1bb/hr for a good player. (There are occasionally tough tables, but the next day it will go back to normal).

Hielko · #5 01-02-2007, 09:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A new 20/40 limit hold'em table has been running at the local casino for about 2 or 3 months. The overwheelming majority of the regulars there are very weak, most of them almost perfectly matching the model of a loose-passive textbook player type, who has become so rare at the medium stakes on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm playing in live 10/20 game like this. I have played a little over 200 hours so I don't know my true winrate yet, but at the moment I'm making a little more then 2BB/hour. With 20/25 hands an hour this would be something around 8bb/100.

ps. I'm not a strong/expert player, I just know the SSH basics, but I'm certainly the best player in that game by a mile.

MitchL · #6 01-02-2007, 09:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You win 8-9 hands per 100? I am a LOT lower than that. I figure that in 100 hands I might see 25-30 flops and of those hands I maybe win 5-6. Either you play a lot more hands than I do, or you flop good, or you're a much better player than me (which is very possible). I am winning around ~1BB/100 but to be honest I am having trouble finding really good games these days.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you live anywhere near Canterbury then you are way wrong. I havent sat in a tough game 15-30 or below in over 2 years. The 30 is tough very rarely and us usually th juciest game.

CardSharpCook · #7 01-02-2007, 11:08 PM

your "share" is about 14%. That assumes a little more than 7 players per hand which is reasonable in a live game. (12% would assume 8 players per hand) A tight player will be playing fewer hands and winning more like 8-9%, or 8-9 hands. It seems likely that you are overestimating your own bad luck/tightness.

stinkypete · #8 01-02-2007, 11:23 PM

i think in the game you describe (6-8 limpers on average), it's possible to win about 3BB/hour. i don't believe that the game is consistently that good though. 1.5BB/hour is probably a good goal for a very good player.

SA125 · #9 01-03-2007, 01:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Am I completely unrealistic when I assume about 7-9BB/100 hands to be possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
1.5BB/hour is probably a good goal for a very good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the money. If you're playing 20-40 for about 30-40 hrs a week and regularly avg'ing 1BB per hr over the course of months, that would be good.

TommyO · #10 01-03-2007, 09:13 PM

I never meant to imply that I've been unlucky, just that I only win 5-6 hands per 100. I am usually the tightest player at the table but when I do play I'm very aggressive. It's been a long time since I've been at a table that averages 7 players per hand. It's possible I need to loosen up a little but it's not unusual at all for me to go 5 or 6 orbits around the table before winning a hand.

My last session I played for about three hours and won 5 hands. 4 of the 5 pots were very nice so it was a good session over all but that's pretty much a typical session for me. There was one really bad player at my table but everyone else was playing fairly well. Definitely not the tard fest everyone seems to assume around here.