Question for nl100+ guys on rake/beatability of game

    • krizanova
      krizanova
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.09.2011 Posts: 5
      Hi guys!
      I have recently started playing poker and my ambitions were/are to reach FR nl100 or higher in 1 - 2 years, by playing about 50-100 hours a month.

      The one thing that has started to discourage me is the increasing rake for the last years.


      Everyone who is saying that he/she beats the game for 3bb/100 (going AVERAGE winner here) do you win that, INCLUDING rakeback?

      I mean, the core question I would like to know the answer to is:
      1) Assuming I could be an average okayer (winner), could I win those ~3-4bb/100 (including RB) in long term fr nl100 and higher??

      Please understand me, I am trying to decide whether to invest huge amounts of my time for a long term goal, that may actually be unachievable, because of reasons I cannot direct°ly effect (rake().

      P.S. Just to be clear my 1-2 year goal is making 3000+ dollars a month by playing 100 hours a month.
  • 5 replies
    • Maniatrix
      Maniatrix
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.11.2008 Posts: 674
      If you break even you will get that with rakeback. Put in an insane volume and you could probably live on the rakeback.

      Rake is evil: 7.5 bb/100 at nl100
    • jimmiko
      jimmiko
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.08.2011 Posts: 292
      At poker's actual state, you can expect 2bb/100 at nl100 fr, and 3bb/100 at sh. That 3K is not too realistic at my eyes Only if you play higher, and sh. And 3 hours a day is not enough I think. To become better, you shouldn't just play, but learn, look into your statistics, share thoughts with other players on your level, etc. Getting better is important, because the average gets better, less and less fish, more regs. You say you want to make 3K a month 1-2 years later. In 2014, I'm not very sure, if poker will be priftable at all for anybody. It's not an industry, which you can count on. I'm speaking about politics, and that you can't expect much more gamblers to start playing poker. Those, who didn't want to play poker the last 5 years, won't play the next 5 either. Of course, there are, but all of them wants to be pros, they don't want gambling. They either end their carreer in weeks, or become decent players, who you won't have edge because of the rake!
    • kenthmp
      kenthmp
      Bronze
      Joined: 19.04.2009 Posts: 485
      Hmmm... Let's trade forex instead?
    • Shevtshenko
      Shevtshenko
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.12.2009 Posts: 4,087
      Originally posted by jimmiko
      At poker's actual state, you can expect 2bb/100 at nl100 fr, and 3bb/100 at sh. That 3K is not too realistic at my eyes Only if you play higher, and sh. And 3 hours a day is not enough I think.
      This made me certain that you're not playing nl100.


      @OP:

      nl100 is beatable for +10bb's/100 hands atm, NOT including rakeback. Averaging 3k$ in month is for sure not just possible but also likely for a fulltime player on nl100 today.

      and what comes to ppl talking about win rates, it's pretty much always a win rate without rakeback.
    • fuzzyfish
      fuzzyfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 12.01.2010 Posts: 862
      Originally posted by Maniatrix
      If you break even you will get that with rakeback. Put in an insane volume and you could probably live on the rakeback.

      Rake is evil: 7.5 bb/100 at nl100
      Hmm, my average is 10 bb/100, where do you play and whats your VPIP?