---

Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by DosXX (High Stakes)

Time Link to 00:06:00

Dos XX, you comment that you don't think the best players are beating the game for 1BB/100...but that formula is using 1BB/hr. That can't be 100 hands per hour right? Any thoughts on how many you get per hour?

Dos XX, when you're factoring bankroll management, are you considering the time played per hour to play along with a standard tip of a dollar per pot won over an arbitrary amount? I would think beating the game for 1BB/HR an hour would actually mean the player is beating the game for more.

Using the Atlantic City time rate for the 20/40 game of 14$ per hour, plus adding 4$ for tips; a 1BB/hr live player needs to earn 58$ per hour, or 1.45BB/Hr to "clear" the 1BB/hr.

nice vid. the long run is really long.

@grandmoff, i think 30-35 hands/hour is considered safe/standard. i would expect the number to creep upward as you move up into high stakes (dosxx told me once that commerce 60 is significantly faster than then 40), maybe approaching 40 hands/hr

Phil, the critical factor your missing here is the 100/200 stud game at Commerce. Thats what makes 100/200 work whereas I think if you rely on solely 100 hold'em i think your in trouble, the games are just fiendishly hard. I actually think 200 hold'em is easier than the 100 lol. But yeh at 100 stud, I think variance goes down since its full ring a lot and i think a 1BB/hr winrate is easily obtainable, compared to 100 hold'em where the biggest winner in the game often time has only a .5BB/hr winrate.

Also at 2/4, you want to be able to play mix games, where again I think variance is lower and winrates are higher once you become expert at that format at poker. So basically, life is tough for 60 players and 100 players that only play hold'em, and I have a few friends in that camp currently.

This information only applies to DCers in So Cal obviously.

I also think you might have done some of the calculations wrong, at least for the confidence interval. It says on the spreadsheet on the 20/40 column that if you had an observed winrate of 1 BB/hr for 1000 hours, your actual winrate could be between -2.16 and 4.16 BB/hr, 68% of the time. By similar logic, if your observed winrate was -2.16 BB/hr, your actual winrate could be between -5.32BB/hr and 1 BB/hr, 68% of the time (within 1 standard dev of the mean, in other words).

The problem is, if you had an observed winrate of -2.16 BB/hr, you'd have gone broke on hour 100. Even though 16% of the time you have that observed winrate, you actually have a 1 BB/hr winrate. So in other words, it seems 16% of the time you run 216 bets under expectation in 200 hours. This doesnt fit in line with your risk of ruin being 1% over 1000 hours on a 230 bet roll.

So using this site: http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tools/poker_winrate_confidence/

I plugged in winrate of 3 BB/100, Std dev of 30 BB/100, and # of hands as 33330. (I am assumming 33.33 hands/hour of live play).

At a 95% confidence interval, with an observed winrate of 3BB/100 your actual winrate in BB/100 is between -.22 and 6.22, 95% of the time. That translates to being between -.07 BB/hr and 2.07 BB/hr, 95% of the time after 1000 hours of play. This is more in line with what I have seen from my friends who are live poker pro's.

Actually, according to BigBadBabar in another post, his online standard dev was like 16BB/100, and I suspect online is a lot more variance than live, so in reality the swings are much smaller even. Maybe live standard deviation is only 12BB/100.

Assuming a winrate of 3BB/100 and standard dev of 12BB/100, this means after 33330 hands of live play (or 1000 hours), your 99.99% confidence interval is .45BB/100 to 5.55BB/100. This means that you have less than a 1 in 20000 chance of having a 1000 hour breakeven stretch live, assuming your a 1 BB/hr winner.