PLO Win-rate?

Go ahead, try it out and let us know.

Anyway, micros are for learning purposes not for money making.

As one high stakes reg once said: Don't build your roll on micro stakes, because you'll learn some very very very useless things there (like people not being able to bluff in certain spots and so on). So better to make money elsewhere and start higher. Or get staked+coached.

I've been a poker pro for many years, so I am not just spewing some random facts.

Anyway, there's plenty of materials on how to crush micros, if that's what you want to do.

GL!

Yeah coaching is probably the way to go. But it's expensive and requires full commitment. I'm still learning so micros are fine for the time being.

Not all players want to go as high as possible. Often the problem with higher stakes players is that playing there is the norm for them. And they have played micros quite some time ago, and might have very out-of-date view on them.

I would say the most important thing for poker player is to figure out what he wants from poker. If someone is happy to play 1K hands a week at PLO25, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone wants to aim as high as possible, using most of the time to study and then go as high as possible with variance he can handle might be the way to go.

It's also good to note, that as you get to higher stakes, the competition usually goes up. It's a different thing to make profit at PLO10 than at PLO50. Or PLO200. If the goal is at higher stakes (maybe midstakes?), then one common route is to climb up from micros. Yeah, making money at micros is different, but you get to tougher competition little by little climbing up. And if you do it correctly, you become quite good on exploiting recreational players. No matter what stakes you play, most of the profits come from them anyway. Just use aggressive BRM and take shots as soon as possible. If someone tries to climb up from micros with 100bin BRM, it will take a lifetime. ♦

But to the question, what winrate is achievable at micros: 40bb/100 is possible, but only on some closed player pools where the level is really poor. At bigger sites like GG, Stars etc. it's often tought to make 10bb/100 pre rakeback at PLO10 or higher. I haven't ever seen a graph from big sites micros with good sample size that would have over 15bb/100 winrate.

Originally posted by Axif1
Anyway, micros are for learning purposes not for money making.

Depends on whatäs defined as "money making". If someone wants to have 100-1000 extra money each month, it's very achievable at micros.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
At bigger sites like GG, Stars etc. it's often tought to make 10bb/100 pre rakeback at PLO10 or higher. I haven't ever seen a graph from big sites micros with good sample size that would have over 15bb/100 winrate.

Wow that is surprising. I didn't realize that the player pool was so tough at these sites. Those are very similar to NLH numbers. This is why I asked this question because when I started playing I was expecting similar win/loss rates. But that has not been the case so I asked if this is normal. Personally the biggest hurdle stopping me from shot taking is that I have really hard time focusing after like 1.5h of play time ♦.

Rake is a killer. At small stakes your rake is 15-20bb, depending on site and your playing style. If you play fast formats (R&C, Zoom etc.) it's even harder to get a good winrate, as average opponent has tighter preflop range. Average VPIP is Zoom is around 20-25%, at normal tables you can often find tables where average is 40-50%. That 20% is "all good hands", so when someone plays that range it's harder for them to make big mistakes. Then at GG normal tables there are grinders who grind for leaderboard, and once again tight preflop range. And there are short stackers, and EV versus those is not that great.

If you get to play on tables where all opponents VPIP is around 50%, then it's possible to get a good winrate. If you sit at table where VPIP is 20-25 for all, it's harder to beat the rake.

Yeah I saw that when I watched you stream, I think it you were playing on ggpoker. It was quite funny how dead the table was. About rake, according to Primedope Rake Calculator the rake for micros should be around 9-12bb.

That can't be right. I have small sample size on this computer, but it shows 20bb/100 rake. It's high, as I have won a lot (winners pay more rake). Too bad I don't have more as this laptop was formatted few months ago.

Tom Smeets has done a video about this 3 months ago, and PLO 25 rake was 13-20bb/100 in his statistics. The thing is, winners pay more rake and losers pay less. If we take average rake per player, it's always a little lower than it should be for us (assuming we are the winners). And then playing style affects it a bit too, more aggressive we are, the more we pay the rake (and hopefully also win more).

Sites have different rake structures. In Tom's video it shows that at PartyPoker the rake is highest, 20bb/100. But they also have one of the best rakeback systems. It's always about the net rake, what you pay after all bonuses and rakebacks. In GG the initial rake might be low, but their Fish Buffet is one of the worst in the business. So it's not about the rake you pay at the tables, it's about the rake you pay overall. And that has a big impact on your winrate pre rakeback. That's why I think you should always talk about net winrate (after rakeback and bonuses) at micros.

Example: Kyyberi has an edge over the playing field, and it's +20bb/100 on average. Without rake, he would make 20bb/100 winrate.

On site A, rake structure makes him pay 13bb/100 and he gets 15% rakeback. His net rake is 11bb/100, giving him a winrate of 9bb/100 in the end.

On site B, rake structure makes him pay 20bb/100, but he gets 80% rakeback. His net rake is 4bb, giving him a winrate of 16bb/100 in the end.

On site C, rake structure makes him pay 20bb/100, but he gets 15% rakeback. His net rake is 17bb, giving him winrate of 3bb/100 in the end.

So same player, versus same level of opponents, and winrate difference from 3bb to 16bb/100 after rakeback. Before rakeback the winrates are breakeven or 7bb/100.

So the difference in pre-rakeback winrate can be as high as 10bb/100 depending on site, for same player. His skills can make him a 10bb/100 crusher on one site and at the same time he is breakeven struggling reg on another site. That shows how damn important rake is at micros.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
The thing is, winners pay more rake and losers pay less. If we take average rake per player, it's always a little lower than it should be for us (assuming we are the winners). And then playing style affects it a bit too, more aggressive we are, the more we pay the rake (and hopefully also win more).

Good Point.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
In GG the initial rake might be low, but their Fish Buffet is one of the worst in the business. So it's not about the rake you pay at the tables, it's about the rake you pay overall. And that has a big impact on your winrate pre rakeback. That's why I think you should always talk about net winrate (after rakeback and bonuses) at micros.

Lucky for me I can't get rake back, at all, regardless of site

I just finished a session after 1003 hands today in PLO2 RnC in GGpoker network. I'm 2 tabling max 20-30min sessions and leave table and open new when reach over $3. I'm playing very tight 19/12. Have won $4,95 in total playing time 121min. That makes 24,68bb/100 that is for me quite good winning rate. But it's only $2,45/h. Rake $0,93, rakeback minimum 20% + leaderboard + sometimes winnings from flipouts. I will update my Micro PLO blog soon and tell more.

It's high, as I have won a lot (winners pay more rake).

I think this depends. If you are running hot, then sure you will pay more rake. But in general, loose players are going to pay more rake than tight players, since loose players both play and win more pots than tight players. Tight players are going to win fewer pots, but win a higher % of the pots they contest.