3 ms·
> " I used the data at this level from 2013 where I won $1,913.13 over 387,373 hands," This does not seem like a lot of money to earn for playing 387k hands!
by SeanDav 9y ago
> " I used the data at this level from 2013 where I won $1,913.13 over 387,373 hands,"
This does not seem like a lot of money to earn for playing 387k hands!
Not a criticism just an observation - but surely this amount of effort could be better spent elsewhere? Purely from a money-making perspective, obviously there is an element of enjoyment here which might change the picture significantly.
- jlgaddis 9y agoThat was my first thought when I read that. Just from doing some quick math in my head (which may very well be wrong, I'm not fully awake yet), that's roughly $1 earned per 200 hands. At ~600 hands per hour (IIRC, from the article), that's an average of $3 per hour. One could earn more working at a minimum-wage fast food job (although it wouldn't be as fun or interesting).
- splonk 9y agoFor professional low level poker players, a good deal of their income comes from rakeback. That is, for every hand, the site makes $N (the "rake"), and the player gets back X% of N/players, where X scales according to the amount of volume put in. I'm a bit out of the loop but you can assume that N is around $3 and X is probably in the 35% range. Some people semi-derisively refer to these people as "rakeback pros", in that you can break even (or even lose a little bit) in your poker results, and still make a living wage from the rakeback alone. Also, 387k hands probably takes less time to play than you think. Many online grinders play upwards of 1000 hands/hr - 20+ tables concurrently X 50-150 hands/hr.