Win-Rate at Hawaiian Gardens

dodgerwhite777 · #1 09-20-2007, 08:14 PM

I know that posts regarding "win rates" are generally frowned upon. However, I hope that this forum will allow me a little lienency.

I have been playing 5 days a week at Hawaiian Gardens in Orange County California for approximately 8 weeks. I play in the $300 buy-in game with $2-$5 blinds. For those of you familiar with that casino, you know that the play there is relatively horrible. Over my 8 week period, I have averaged +475 per session, and my average session has been a little over 7 hours long. I am doing slightly better on the weekends than on the weekdays, but the difference is only about $18 a session. My question is this. Given the poor level of play at this location, is this win-rate sustainable? Have any of you experienced similar/greater success? I consider myself a good but not amazing player, so if this result seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Thanks

Fnord · #2 09-20-2007, 08:26 PM

For what it's worth, when I've felt like this I usually am on a heater for about double my long-term rate. That said, it doesn't seem way out of line, without any more information on how you match up against the field.

Woolygimp · #3 09-20-2007, 08:29 PM

I am an amazing player [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img], and I play 5/5 out of necessity when there's no 5/10 PLO/H&H game going. I've averaged about $13-18,000/mo and about $65/hr at that level over the past 4-5 months.

That's only around a 40,000 hand sample size, and I've seen 300,000 hand upswings and downswings online. This just puts live into perspective, swings can last for...years. The play is so horrible that it becomes far more unlikely.

dodgerwhite777 · #4 09-20-2007, 08:49 PM

Do you think the $65/hour win-rate is affected more by the buy-in or by the size of the blinds?

Hipsdontlie69 · #5 09-20-2007, 08:52 PM

we all can claim that we're a winning player but we all know only a small percentage is actually up, poker is mainly luck and luck is not always there.

Woolygimp · #6 09-20-2007, 08:57 PM

It's a mixture of both. The blinds are the priority so far as to say that a 5/5 $300 buyin game would play larger than a 1/2 $500 buyin game. The blinds help create a sizeable pot, however if they are too small it doesn't matter how deep you are you just can't extract the maximum value.

Even if a casino were to spread a $200 buyin 5/10 game, it'd turn into a standard 5/10 game with everyone at least $1000 behind after a couple hours.

That said, you almost always want to be as deep as possible against bad players, as long as it's within the capabilities of your bankroll of course.

Woolygimp · #7 09-20-2007, 08:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
we all can claim that we're a winning player but we all know only a small percentage is actually up, poker is mainly luck and luck is not always there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm on a 1.8 million(5 year) hand lucky streak.

lol @ you saying that everyone is a losing player.

Fnord · #8 09-20-2007, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the $65/hour win-rate is affected more by the buy-in or by the size of the blinds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Live (and some online) NLHE is funny in that I think it's incorrect to judge the size of the game by just the blinds. The fish are pretty much the blinds

Compare these NLHE games for value:
A drunken 1/2 200 max game where $20 pre-flop raises are the norm, some dunk guy is re-buying every 3rd hand for $100 and most of the players are sitting on $400-$1000+

A semi-tight/passive 2/5 500 max game where people are also bringing it in for $20/$25, playing a little looser than an online .5/1 game, giving off lots of tells and making some pretty big mistakes but are generally trying to play well at some level. Most people are at around the buy-in, with a couple at over double.

It's Apples and Oranges! Also, your particular play style might be wildly more profitable in one game than the other.

dodgerwhite777 · #9 09-20-2007, 09:10 PM

So do people think that approx. $500/day wins are sustainable long term in a bad 2-5 $300 buy-in game?

Fnord · #10 09-20-2007, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So do people think that approx. $500/day wins are sustainable long term in a bad 2-5 $300 buy-in game?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how you match up to your opponents. I certainly think half of that win-rate is sustainable. In other words, I think match-ups and skill factor is much larger in live NLHE than just about any other widely spread form of poker.