Starting with $50, hypothetical question.

TheHoss · #1 07-16-2006, 11:47 PM

(cross-posted from beginners forum in hopes of getting some replies)

Sorry if this goes in another forum, wasn't sure where else to post it.

Say a good player starts out with $50 on Pokerstars. How long, on average, would it take them to turn it into $10k following the criteria below:

-BR guidelines: moving up at 10 buyins from 5nl through 25nl, 20 buyins from 50nl through 200nl (staying at 200nl until the 10k is reached)

-playing 40 hrs/week

-10 tabling 6max

Let me know if I left out any other pertinent info...remember I'm not asking how fast it's possible for a good player to run $50 into 10k, but how long it would take them on average using the previous guidelines.

thanks

greed · #2 07-16-2006, 11:59 PM

A decent player can beat NL $5 and NL $10 for a huge BB / 100. So those levels are nearly pointless ince you'll be out of them so quickly. Let's just say you can beat NL $5 for 15 BB / 100 and NL $10 for 10 BB / 100. So in those cases your $ / 100 is $1.50 and $2.00, respectively. So at 10 tables of 6-max we'll say 800 hands per hour on average since Stars is a little on the slow side. So that comes out to like $12 / hour at NL $5 and $16 / hour at NL $10. So to get up to $250 for NL $25 is going to take no more than sat 15 hours.

Now at NL $25 we'll just say, for simplicity, you can win 5 BB / 100 up all the way up to NL $200. So that comes out to $20 / hour at 800 hands / hour at NL $25, so about 38 hours to hit $1,000 for NL $50. To get $2,000 it'll take another 25 hours at $40 / hour at NL $50. To hit $4,000 for NL $200 is going to take another 25 hours at $80 / hour at NL $100. And finally, to get $6,000 at NL $200 at 5 BB / 100, or $160 / hour, will take 37.5 hours.

I think that comes out to be like 147.5 hours. So at 40 hours a week, not even a month.

dboy23 · #3 07-17-2006, 12:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A decent player can beat NL $5 and NL $10 for a huge BB / 100. So those levels are nearly pointless ince you'll be out of them so quickly. Let's just say you can beat NL $5 for 15 BB / 100 and NL $10 for 10 BB / 100. So in those cases your $ / 100 is $1.50 and $2.00, respectively. So at 10 tables of 6-max we'll say 800 hands per hour on average since Stars is a little on the slow side. So that comes out to like $12 / hour at NL $5 and $16 / hour at NL $10. So to get up to $250 for NL $25 is going to take no more than sat 15 hours.

Now at NL $25 we'll just say, for simplicity, you can win 5 BB / 100 up all the way up to NL $200. So that comes out to $20 / hour at 800 hands / hour at NL $25, so about 38 hours to hit $1,000 for NL $50. To get $2,000 it'll take another 25 hours at $40 / hour at NL $50. To hit $4,000 for NL $200 is going to take another 25 hours at $80 / hour at NL $100. And finally, to get $6,000 at NL $200 at 5 BB / 100, or $160 / hour, will take 37.5 hours.

I think that comes out to be like 147.5 hours. So at 40 hours a week, not even a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Highly optimistic. if it was this easy to make 10k a month everyone here would be rich.

thing85 · #4 07-17-2006, 12:06 AM

You make it sound so easy...

Alex/Mugaaz · #5 07-17-2006, 12:06 AM

I would bet against any new player winning while 10 tabling 6max.

dboy23 · #6 07-17-2006, 12:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet against any new player winning while 10 tabling 6max.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a winning playing and I can barely manage 4 tables.

greed · #7 07-17-2006, 12:16 AM

Yeah the scenario I presented was pretty optimistic considering most people can't 10-table for 5 BB / 100. But, there are still several who can. Even if you aren't that great, you can get 2.5 BB / 100 and it would take two months. And 2.5 BB / 100 is doable beyond a doubt.

But don't forget this didn't include rakeback or bonuses, which could add another $2,000. I'd say the biggest challenge though is developing the 10-tabling skill. It seems like some people just can't do that no matter how hard they try.

TheHoss · #8 07-17-2006, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet against any new player winning while 10 tabling 6max.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's why i specified a good player. the first reply by greed is exactly the type of thing i was looking for, although i still welcome anyone else to comment if they think the figures would be different (always good to get more than 1 pt of view).

dunno if this is necessary, but for this purpose i'll define a "good player" as someone who's capable of beating, say, 400-600nl at a decent rate. although i assume it wouldn't make much difference going through the first few limits whether the person could beat 400nl or say, 5000nl, since they would be 10-tabling the same kind of ABC poker (or is this a bad assumption?).

fwiw i also specified pokerstars because, afaik, it has no bonus/rakeback...i guess they have like a first time deposit bonus or something(?). but either way i don't want to include any bonus/rakeback in the equation.

BTW thanks for the replies so far

smartalecc5 · #9 07-17-2006, 05:31 AM

I consider myself a "good player" that wins money. Im not great but get the job done. I have played online poker for 2 years. There is no way you can effectively 10 table 6max tables. You end up minraising here and there, missing valuebets b/c you don't have time to type in your bet cuz 6 other tables are calling your attention.

TheHoss · #10 07-17-2006, 06:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself a "good player" that wins money. Im not great but get the job done. I have played online poker for 2 years. There is no way you can effectively 10 table 6max tables. You end up minraising here and there, missing valuebets b/c you don't have time to type in your bet cuz 6 other tables are calling your attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure a lot of people do it, I used to 8-table 6max effectively, so I can't imagine adding 2 more tables being that big of a deal. I'm not saying you would be playing the same quality as you could with 2 or 3 tables, but just playing ABC poker at low limits I don't think you're sacrificing too much, just a matter of mouse speed i guess.