1
 |
R_I New Zealand. Apr 05 2010 00:21. Posts 682 | | |
I played 100 hu sngs recently to work on tilt control and see if I could build a roll off them. There were a few times I wanted to post one of the many suckouts but I just thought eff it, I made the correct decision so I think I made some progress in having the right mindset.
Still, losing a lot of times when I'm the favourite takes it toll (br-wise mostly) and I'm not really keen on the sng structure means I'm back to cash, starting at nl5.
Now onto the idea: I've noticed that with rush poker there's enough action so I get about $2 in rakeback per hour at nl5. If I was 4 tabling normally then that would be say 400 hands optimistically in an hour so $2 would actually be 5ptbb/100.
Some people might say that one should have a higher winrate at nl5 but tbh I'd be quite happy to have 5ptbb/100 in terms of hourly rate compared to normal 4 tabling. And that's just at breakeven rakeback so I should be able to make some more on top of that even with a mediocre winrate.
Lesse what happens this month as I put in some effort at nl5 rush pokers. I haven't given up poker despite losing constantly in the past cos one day in about 4 years time I do wanna go somewhere in Asia and grind even nl50 6 max for a few months and see what it's like.
|
|
|
1
 |
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 05 2010 00:24. Posts 4946 | | |
You sure you did your math right? I thought 1000 h/hr was standard at rush. Which is less than 1bb/100 from rakeback, which seems more realistic than $2/hr in rakeback alone. Im too lazy to do the numbers here but from experience, $2/hr in rakeback at NL5 just seems way too much, unless you are 24 tabling. |
|
| bye now | Last edit: 05/04/2010 00:25 |
|
|
1
| |
how do you transfer 1000h/hr into 1bb/100 in rakeback |
|
|
1
| |
anyway. i recommend "learning" the game, improving, instead of making rakeback plans at such low stakes
2 dollars per hour is still shit |
|
|
1
|
R_I New Zealand. Apr 05 2010 01:06. Posts 682 | | |
you guys are misunderstanding.
if i was playing 4 normal tables of nl5 it'd be 400 hands per hour and $2 in that hour is 5ptbb/100
and $2 is what i can get from rakeback alone at nl5 rush poker playing 1k hands per hour or whatever.
im def not just planning on making rakeback, just pointing out that even if i was breakeven at rush poker id have the equivalent of 5ptbb/100 with 4 normal tables.
im still working on my game and plugging leaks and working on having the right mindset of only decisions mattering when I play. |
|
|
1
|
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 05 2010 01:53. Posts 4946 | | |
Spastic hit it on the head though. If you arent profitable yet then dont use rakeback as justification to keep playing 1000h/hr, because therein lies your problem. Make yourself profitable at a given limit, and then consider rakeback just icing on the cake. Then 5 years from now when you are grinding for a living, you'll look back at rakeback as a life saver, but way too early for that now. |
| |
|
|
1
|
R_I New Zealand. Apr 05 2010 02:12. Posts 682 | | |
I'm pretty sure I can be profitable at nl5 rush poker even without the rakeback.
I know it stunts my growth in that I won't be making big reads on players but really, I'm working mostly on a solid ABC style and tilt issues atm. It's NL5 afterall and I level myself a lot if I try to get all fancy.
So, like I said before Ima put some time into Rush this month and see what happens. |
|
| | Last edit: 05/04/2010 02:13 |
|
|
1
 |
Silver_nz New Zealand. Apr 05 2010 02:39. Posts 5647 | | |
| | On April 04 2010 23:42 SpasticInk wrote:
anyway. i recommend "learning" the game, improving, instead of making rakeback plans at such low stakes
2 dollars per hour is still shit |
quoted for truth.
how's reading 'easy game' been going? |
|
|
1
| |
please take peoples advice, try playing without thinking of rakeback and think about how you would beat the game. |
|
| | Last edit: 05/04/2010 04:52 |
|
|
|
Contact Users: 999 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 02:06
