Ideal NL profit

I know that when you play limit, a standard goal is 1 BB per hour. But what about NL? What is a legit profit goal? What is something that means your playing sound poker and yet is reasonable too? I know the swings are much greater in NL but I also think that there has to be some kind of idea profit goal. (And I know the goal would be based on the stakes) But comparative to the stakes how much money should be a goal per session/hr etc.

{Moved from beginners circle}

I think as long as you are coming out ahead you are doing well. After all, poker is a negative sums game for the players. I can only base my number on personal experience and from what I have heard, but I think a good number to strive for would be about 1/5 of the buy-in per hour, per table. I believe this goal is reasonable, but would get harder as you move up. If you are only playing one table and you are taking detailed notes then you could probably do better. If you are playing multiple tables then your +EV for each table decreases. In six man tables you could probably make more per table but its more difficult to multi-table.

You usually want to triple your buy in within the first hour. After that you should move up a limit or two and double that within 45 minutes. Then you can usually go home.

About 4 bb per hour.

Ignore the previous post, that's some kind of joke.

Originally Posted by asmbball33

I know the swings are much greater in NL.

Actually, the swings in LIMIT are much greater.

Originally Posted by allLiving

Originally Posted by asmbball33

I know the swings are much greater in NL.

Actually, the swings in LIMIT are much greater.

How do you figure that? In limit you’re only risking maybe 1 to 4bb to call a hand on the each round where in NL it could be your whole stack so mathematically per hand how the hell is that possible? per hour even I don't see you loosing your hole table buy in unless your either extremely bad or got some extremely bad beats for massive pots, at lets say .5/1 limit you sit down with 25 the bb so $25, in the .25/.50nl game you end up sitting with about $25 to 50 depends on the site, so lets see here, nl has lower blinds but more at risk limit most you can get in one pot would be a cap on every round and how often does that happen? I'm just trying to figure where you get limit has more swings then no limit I’m not seeing it... please do explain to me if you would… unless you're thinking in long term since but even then I’m not seeing it…

Yeah, limit swings are clearly not as great - on any given hand, there is a "limit" (hmmm, how ironic) to the amount of money you can lose, even every street is max-raised and capped. In "no-limit," no such limit exists. Because it's no limit, get it?

And actually, "ideal" NL profit is hard to measure, people have different opinions. Obviously my earlier post was a joke. In actuality, if the ideal gain in NL was that much higher than limit, why would any solid NL player ever play limit? I'd said 1-2BB/100 is fine. But it depends. When I'm with my friends, I probably get 15BB/100. At Turning Stone or a bar, I usually get 2-3BB/100. But all of those players are weak (my friends being terrible).

I think at low stakes NLHE, more than 5BB/100 (BB being a limit BB, or 2x the big blind) is more than reasonable. I think a decent player could sustain anywhere between 5 to 10 BB/100.

I thought that the swings in limit would be greater because you can end up with better pot odds more often to call down to the river on flush and straight draws. Where as in NL you can bet in a way that takes away your opponents odds.

Also, since the amount you can lose is fixed more people will make more marginal calls.

Am I off on this?

statistically, NL has a higher variance.
statistically, NL also has a higher win rate.

LHE:

My standard deviation through 25k+ hands or so is around 14BB/100 hands.

wowo jeff 4b/100?? thats awesome man!


-anto

That's not his profit. It's his standard deviation.



Learn more math. Impress the ladies.

-'rilla

Originally Posted by robe43

I thought that the swings in limit would be greater because you can end up with better pot odds more often to call down to the river on flush and straight draws. Where as in NL you can bet in a way that takes away your opponents odds.

Also, since the amount you can lose is fixed more people will make more marginal calls.

Am I off on this?

That is the theory I had been going on as well. But I don't have anything to prove it.

Originally Posted by johnnyawe

Originally Posted by robe43

I thought that the swings in limit would be greater because you can end up with better pot odds more often to call down to the river on flush and straight draws. Where as in NL you can bet in a way that takes away your opponents odds.

Also, since the amount you can lose is fixed more people will make more marginal calls.

Am I off on this?

That is the theory I had been going on as well. But I don't have anything to prove it.

many pros on 2+2 confirmed this.

You want one or two big bets an hour per table and you want to win about 70%+ of those. Requring X amount of profit from yourself in a set amount of time, however, is a bad idea. Particularly in a small unit such as an hour. Its a much smaller version of playing for rent money, you require X amount from yourself in x amount of time and it can force you overly loose or overly tight.

Most of those big bets will be small edges that are going to be hard to be aggressive with. TPTK, bottom two pair, or even a small set (Though its a little easier to be aggressive with a hidden set.)

If your opponents are playing exactly the same in LHE vs NL, then the variance in NL is clearly greater. So, actual variance depends on the table.

Against Tagg players, I think NL might have smaller variance, because of the ability of a pot-sized bet to drive out draws - while in LHE it's often +EV to call or even raise draws. The worse the players get, the faster the variance climbs - and I think it hits a higher maximum in NL.

Originally Posted by AllinLife

Originally Posted by johnnyawe

Originally Posted by robe43

I thought that the swings in limit would be greater because you can end up with better pot odds more often to call down to the river on flush and straight draws. Where as in NL you can bet in a way that takes away your opponents odds.

Also, since the amount you can lose is fixed more people will make more marginal calls.

Am I off on this?

That is the theory I had been going on as well. But I don't have anything to prove it.

many pros on 2+2 confirmed this.

if you come across the links can you post them? i'm curious to see how they confirmed it.

Originally Posted by asmbball33

I know that when you play limit, a standard goal is 1 BB per hour. But what about NL? What is a legit profit goal?

Very good question.. I don't really know.

Originally Posted by Ayce

About 4 bb per hour.

4 big blinds / hour? The reason I ask is because poker tracker defines BB as 2 big blinds for no limit and pot limit.

Originally Posted by zenbitz

If your opponents are playing exactly the same in LHE vs NL, then the variance in NL is clearly greater. So, actual variance depends on the table.

Against Tagg players, I think NL might have smaller variance, because of the ability of a pot-sized bet to drive out draws - while in LHE it's often +EV to call or even raise draws. The worse the players get, the faster the variance climbs - and I think it hits a higher maximum in NL.

I think the 2nd paragraph explains why someone can't play the same in NL as they do in LHE. Unless you mean in the generic sense that they will call down anything.

Originally Posted by johnnyawe

4 big blinds / hour? The reason I ask is because poker tracker defines BB as 2 big blinds for no limit and pot limit.

I'd consider my results marginal for what I could be making, and I am averaging 3BB/hour, 4BB/100 over 7500 hands playing NLHE.

Originally Posted by RD Olivaw

Originally Posted by johnnyawe

4 big blinds / hour? The reason I ask is because poker tracker defines BB as 2 big blinds for no limit and pot limit.

I'd consider my results marginal for what I could be making, and I am averaging 3BB/hour, 4BB/100 over 7500 hands playing NLHE.

I'm at 5.5 BB/100 after 3000 hands. (with BB = 2 x big blind). TwoSevOff is at 7BB/100. So it looks like between 4 and 7 BB/100 is an attainable goal.

Fo Sho.. I was at 5BB until a nice little bite of variance the other night.

Quick note.. It looks like BB/hr is always about 75% of BB/100.

Two items: first dealing with variance.
NL has higher variance, but I also experience higher win rates. Risk adjusted return has always been lower in NL for me than limit (in plain english, I need a smaller bankroll for an equal amount of risk in NL)

Second, my win rates are higher, and I mean WAY higher, in NL than limit. My limit win rates are in the 1-3 BB / 100 range. Here are my stats from UltimateBet.
$25 NL - 9,500 hands, 10.81 BB / 100
$10 NL - 4,800 hands, 31.66 BB / 100
Recently overhauled my game. I went back down to the $2 and will run 10k hands per limit to search for leaks. Here are those stats
$2 NL - 9,000 hands, 25+BB/100
And finally, after further refinement, here are my latest hands.
$2 NL - 4,000 hands, 46+BB/100

I haven't played Limit in months. My total variance is only slightly higher (ie, 30-40%), but my win rate ranges from 3 to 40 times higher.

Hmmm, Ideal NL profit. Well, as much as possible.

I like to set a goal for myself, something like $100 every session. However, whenever I get sucked out, I get flaming pissed and completely forget about my goal.