return per hour

[tufat23 0]

ok so in the books ure meant to get back 1xBB per hour in a live game, maybe 40 hands per hour at LHE.whats the rate online? and what do u find when u multitable?i play NL primarily but have been interested in what i should get at LHE.on 2 tables i make find 10xbig blinds per hour(obviously more hands p/h online) at NL25 is about right for me and about 6-8big blinds for NL50 for each table when playing 2 tables.also has anyone found that multying 4tables at the penniy tables (NL2) on UB could easily bing around $10 p/h? the action is basically the same as play money, with the only exception that people are looking to put all their money in on the turn/river as opposed to preflop.(although i havent thoroughly tested this, just realised this after i was trying to help a mate learn how to get started at internet poker)im really interested in finding out how much return p/h or bb/100 ius realistic after say 20,000 hands online, and the different rates btw NL and LHE.

[Emptyeye 0]

Well, as you've probably noticed, BB/100 is a far better estimate than BB/hr when it comes to online thanks to the multitable factor. Additionally, even at one table, you'll see more hands per hour online than live even at some of the sites that are slow for one reason or another (Pokerstars probably being the main offender here).Anyway, 1BB/hr translates to 2.5-3BB/100 hands if you presume 40 hands/hr at live tables. Note that, at online microlimits, 4-5BB/100 is not unreasonable. This is all LHE; I'm not really sure what your expected rate is at NL as I don't play it a lot myself.

[DCWildcat 0]

Depends on the stakes, your skill, and how many tables you're playing.Online, you'll see ~60 hands/hour, but far more than that if you're playing shorthanded (which you should do as soon as you can comfortably beat full ring). I've never seen 40 hands/hour live though, more like 30.To give any kind of reasonable figure, I'd need to know the stakes and skill level. But for a good player relative to his limi, 2BB/100 is good, and 3BB/100 isn't unheard of until about 10/20; pretty much impossible at that point. Realize that online games at the same limit are tougher than their live counterparts (still easy, but harder). I'd rather play 5/10 at most casinos than 1/2, for example.

[tufat23 0]

i play 0.25/0.5NL usually online and 0.5/1LHE.this thing about live casino games being easier, is it really true? i've read posts about it (in other forums) saying that it is cos there are gamblers in there who just fancy it as a change from roulette or w.e.also i suppose playing for more than ure online limits makes sense because u need to overcome a much higher rake.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

whats the rate online? and what do u find when u multitable? i play NL primarily but have been interested in what i should get at LHE.

The prevailing wisdom is that winrate per table is optimized at 1 table, and the winrate per table goes down as the number of tables go up. However, net profit per hour should go more-than-significantly up if one is a winning player AND an effective multitabler.I would guess the curve "winrate vs. # of tables" has a horizontal asymptote that represents a baseline winrate... and I'm very interested to find out what that baseline is. OR... once it gets to a "silly" number of tables, (somewhere between 4 and 10) does the practicality of PLAYING that many tables imply a non-asymtotic curve, sending the winrate below 0.0 bb/100?Naturally, this raises two questions:a) what is the baseline winrate is for me at a given level...b) what is [delta]winrate as # of tables increasesI'm going to do 10k hands at 1 table, 10k hands at 2 tables, 10k hands at 3 tables, 10k hands at 4 tables, and 10k hands at 5 tables... and I think the results should be very interesting. However, I have a fulltime job, so it'll take a while.

[JSHamm 9]

whats the rate online? and what do u find when u multitable? i play NL primarily but have been interested in what i should get at LHE.

The prevailing wisdom is that winrate per table is optimized at 1 table, and the winrate per table goes down as the number of tables go up. However, net profit per hour should go more-than-significantly up if one is a winning player AND an effective multitabler.I would guess the curve "winrate vs. # of tables" has a horizontal asymptote that represents a baseline winrate... and I'm very interested to find out what that baseline is. OR... once it gets to a "silly" number of tables, (somewhere between 4 and 10) does the practicality of PLAYING that many tables imply a non-asymtotic curve, sending the winrate below 0.0 bb/100?Naturally, this raises two questions:a) what is the baseline winrate is for me at a given level...B) what is [delta]winrate as # of tables increasesI'm going to do 10k hands at 1 table, 10k hands at 2 tables, 10k hands at 3 tables, 10k hands at 4 tables, and 10k hands at 5 tables... and I think the results should be very interesting. However, I have a fulltime job, so it'll take a while.

I think I would love to sit down and hold a conversation with you after dropping massive amounts of LSD.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

I post like that when I'm drunk, high, or really sleep-deprived.Today it's door number 3.Funny thing is I didn't like learning about this stuff until I'd dropped out of college.Definitely got a D and a C in consecutive semesters in the same calculus class, lol.

[JSHamm 9]

I post like that when I'm drunk, high, or really sleep-deprived.Today it's door number 3.Funny thing is I didn't like learning about this stuff until I'd dropped out of college.Definitely got a D and a C in consecutive semesters in the same calculus class, lol.

I'd have no clue at all. I majored in literature and creative writing. if you ever need a good poker story, let me know, otherwise the math is all yours

[DCWildcat 0]

i play 0.25/0.5NL usually online and 0.5/1LHE.

A good player can make 2BB/100, a great player (too good to be at those stakes at least) can make 3BB/100 there.

this thing about live casino games being easier, is it really true? i've read posts about it (in other forums) saying that it is cos there are gamblers in there who just fancy it as a change from roulette or w.e.

It's absolutely true, and pretty much indisputable. No one with significant experience would disagree. Also, it applies across pretty much all stakes--one of LHE's dominant forces, bicyclekick, said that the bellagio 200/400 is about as soft as party's 50/100. like i said, my experience live at 5/10 was that it was softer than 1/2 online. once i start beating 5/10, i'll probably be playing much, much higher in casinos.

also i suppose playing for more than ure online limits makes sense because u need to overcome a much higher rake.

That's true, although it probably doesn't go into low limiit players' heads that much. In general, if you're smart enough to keep good concerns about the rake in your head, you're probably good enough to be playing in games where the rake is negligible.Online games are, in general, MUCH more aggressive and less predictable. Your thought on players treating it as gambling above is completely correct, though.

[DCWildcat 0]

i play 0.25/0.5NL usually online and 0.5/1LHE.

A good player can make 2BB/100, a great player (too good to be at those stakes at least) can make 3BB/100 there.

this thing about live casino games being easier, is it really true? i've read posts about it (in other forums) saying that it is cos there are gamblers in there who just fancy it as a change from roulette or w.e.

It's absolutely true, and pretty much indisputable. No one with significant experience would disagree. Also, it applies across pretty much all stakes--one of LHE's dominant forces, bicyclekick, said that the bellagio 200/400 is about as soft as party's 50/100. like i said, my experience live at 5/10 was that it was softer than 1/2 online. once i start beating 5/10, i'll probably be playing much, much higher in casinos.

also i suppose playing for more than ure online limits makes sense because u need to overcome a much higher rake.

That's true, although it probably doesn't go into low limiit players' heads that much. In general, if you're smart enough to keep good concerns about the rake in your head, you're probably good enough to be playing in games where the rake is negligible. Also, tokes add up.Online games are, in general, MUCH more aggressive and less predictable. Your thought on players treating it as gambling above is completely correct, though.

[tufat23 0]

thx dcwildcat that answers a few of my qs, although one i havent got is what kind of return /100 one should expect if playing NL.and for tj, i'm interested in what ure thinking of doing with the multitabling experiment. gotta tell us ure results. i do economics and statistics at uni but i dont think it would make one bit of difference if u can do basic math. lola couple of qs though, how many monitors u using?also u best off not doing 10k hands at 1 table then 10k at 2 tables etc cos u not accounting for a change in ability. maybe 1k at 1 table then 1k at 2 then 1k at etc etc then come back to another 1k at until u have 10k at all number of tables.u got to also consider what u playing. ring cash? shorthanded cash? HU?i assume just cash and have a consistent split between ring/shorthanded.i cant multi when playing HU (albeit on only one monitor)also could u guess at how much u tilt and for how long at each level? it will be diff by chance for each level, but i do think people would tilt less when playing more tables cos u got more to do and also u play more hands, so hopefully u wont get bored and start leaking away when ure playing 5 tables.

I would guess the curve "winrate vs. # of tables" has a horizontal asymptote that represents a baseline winrate... and I'm very interested to find out what that baseline is. OR... once it gets to a "silly" number of tables, (somewhere between 4 and 10) does the practicality of PLAYING that many tables imply a non-asymtotic curve, sending the winrate below 0.0 bb/100?

ure right on shape of the graph to a certain extent, with the steepness depending on the ability of the individual to multi. however once it gets to breakeven and and below i reckon its like a candle in the sun, that sh*t dont even out (too much jay-z recently)the graph must look more like a y= -x³ which would be shifted and stretch based on ability of the player.maybe u could set up something in excel where u can record ure results and then it just churm out a graph.i dont think however u would ever get to see the tail end of the graph cos surely no one would be losing at say 10 tables, and then decide to play 20 to try and lose even more.

[Gene zzz 0]

NL is alot more but only top dogs live, I've read accounts by rounders and MTT pros who claim 1ox buyin etc. Have read you can play 5d byin nl stg and make over 1od hr just folding! I play nl50d byin stg and make over 50d hr. 1/2 is about = to 50byin I go by buyin max because you can go all in, I don't try to squeeze it rather practice for deep stacked tourneys. I play 1/2 at Dolyes room and it's not as loose agg. more regular bad plays vs. the personality type. Very stable for 1/2 , if you learn NL good can produce larger pots and win more allins, also less dependent on deal; is called catalack of poker is bigger money. But please compute earning by year not session.