Hourly Rates and Bankroll Requirements

A young wannabe poker professional sat down with a piece of paper and calculated his future as a professional poker player. He had gotten ahold of a piece of bad information, and built his plans on a faulty assumption. Someone (probably someone living on the rail explaining how bad his cards had run) had told this young fellow that a top pro playing limit hold'em could make three big bets an hour; $60 per hour in a $10-$20 game, $90 per hour in $15-$30, $180 per hour in $30-$60, and so on! The wannabe projected how many hours he would play, planned how he would step up in limits as his bankroll grew, estimated his expenses, and calculated how many years it would take him to acquire a million dollars. After accomplishing this feat, he would retire from poker and live the life of Riley. This was going to be so easy!

Well, things have not exactly worked out as planned. Years have passed, and the man, while still young, feels a lot older. He has no million dollars in the bank or in a box at the cage. In fact, he struggles to beat the game at all.

Reliance on a faulty premise leads to many a flawed conclusion in logical argument, in poker and in life. The shattered dreams of this fellow had some conceptual design flaws. He did not adequately research potential win rates, and therefore dramatically overestimated what a top-flight professional player's expectation would be. And he also made the assumption that he would reach top-flight professional status, not exactly a gimme by any means. He has some talent, some skill, and some heart, and achieved hometown hero status, doing well on Vegas vacations. But that's a different proposition from grinding it out like a job for 2,000 hours a year, or even a part-time job for 500-800 hours, as I do these days.

Many folks make their way to public cardrooms from Connecticut to California with the idea of making a living at the game, as this young guy did. This gives rise to the question, how much should you expect to win in a game? What is realistic? Many factors go into the equation. How well do you play? How well do your opponents play? What is the house cut? Are these things consistent? Will they remain consistent over time? Assuming that you adjust your strategy correctly to the game, the greater the spread in ability between yourself and your opponents, the more money you should make.

For a top player, as a general rule, the spread in ability between himself and his opponents decreases as he goes up in limits. Also, standard deviation can cause large fluctuations in hourly rate, even after many hours. In order to have a reasonably accurate empirical assessment of what your hourly rate should be, I recommend that you look at a 2,000-hour block, about a year's play for a full-time player.

To complicate matters further, the numbers will vary depending on the limit and type of game you are playing. You will have different hourly rates for hold'em, stud, Omaha, and so on. So, creating a valid set for analysis varies with each of the three games. And if you play any combination of two or three of the games, it colors the results of analysis accordingly. You must create three different samples, and more samples if you vary the limits. Another variable if you're a multigame player is that your skill level is not likely to be equal in all three games. And then you have to factor in pot-limit, no-limit, and tournaments if you play all facets of the game.

A problem with these numbers is that you are not the same person or the same player after 2,000 hours of play that you were at the beginning. And there is the Schrodinger's Cat variable: The act of observation affects what is being observed, although that should be a good thing.

I have often been told by players that you can "run bad" for a year, but in those cases in which players had performed very differently from year to year, I saw a difference in other factors, such as deterioration of a player's play over time, game quality changes, tilt, and so on. In games in which the edge factor between players is very small, you will have much larger fluctuations over longer periods of time. There is also a perspective issue to consider when analyzing hourly rates and expectations. A player whose positive expectation is $60 per hour is running very bad if he breaks even over 500 hours of play, whereas a player with a negative expectation of $60 per hour is running very well to break even over that period of time.

All of this is a lot of discussion without an answer. So, what can you expect to win? I have more than 50,000 hours of observing poker results: my own, and those of other top pros and talented wannabes like the young man with the million dollar goal. I have tracked my own results studiously, and have observed others for blocks of time ranging from 2,000 to 10,000 hours.

I believe that if you are an A+ limit hold'em player, you can make as much as one and three-quarters big bets an hour playing in $10-$20 games if you practice excellent game selection by playing only in very good games. As you step up in limits, the number of big bets per hour as a possible earn decreases, and in $50-$100 games and higher, making a bet an hour over time is not very possible. It is the higher potential and better results at the smaller limits that often leads people to inaccurate conclusions about the game's earning capacity at the higher limits.

In games lower than $10-$20, the possibilities vary enormously based on game composition. Sometimes these games are filled with total novices, and sometimes the players can play well. I've seen lots of Vegas retirees whose goal is to grind out $50-$100 a day at the lower limits, and some of them are mighty tough opponents for the limit they are playing.

Note also that the number of opponents significantly affects hourly rates. If you are playing shorthanded, the potential for a higher hourly rate is feasible because more hands are played, and the ability of players to play hands well becomes a more important factor. Estimating hourly rate in shorthanded games is much more difficult, as it is hugely dependent on the quality of your opposition. Furthermore, even those who excel in shorthanded play can't often find games of their choice, so it's very hard for them to accumulate a set of trials on which to base an evaluation of earning potential.

Also, Internet games constitute a separate universe for calculating hourly rates. The rake is generally lower and the speed of play is about twice as fast. Even though Internet games get out twice as many hands per hour, the top-level hourly expectation is not twice as much. The potential is reduced because all top-level players gain value from visual input, which is much more limited when you are playing on a computer. Also, weak players don't give up as much information in Internet cardrooms. This is something of an equalizing factor that reduces the top player's edge, and therefore his potential earn.

If you are making one and three-quarters big bets an hour in a live, full $10-$20 ring game, you would probably do better financially by stepping up to a higher game. The quality of opposition in the game you are leaving and the game you are going to is a huge variable, however. It has been my observation that the ratio of players trying to make a living at the game increases dramatically at $15-$30 and again at $20-$40, making the step-up from $10-$20 a move that is potentially fraught with economic peril.

If there is a dramatic difference between the lower game you're leaving and the higher game you're going to, you really need to beware of the move, notwithstanding your good results in the lower-limit game. Also, don't make the move if you are not comfortable emotionally in the higher game.

If you have lost money over the course of your last 2,000 hours of live ring play, you may want to either work on improving your game or step down to easier competition. If you are an experienced player, you should be able to get a good feel for what your expectation should be by analyzing the quality of your competition.

All that said, it's my belief that in $10-$20 through $80-$160 games, a realistic expectation for a focused, hard-working, top-performing daily player is in the area of $35 per hour in the lower game and about $125 per hour in the higher game, with adjustments as appropriate in between. In fact, not many players earn at those levels. Most players who think they fit that definition of a player aren't focused, hard-working, top performers. If you're evaluating your future, err on the conservative side, not the optimistic side.

We all know the maxim that poker can be a hard way to make an easy living. Many players, even very intelligent ones, make erroneous assumptions that they will perform at their best level at all times, making a professional hourly rate seem reasonable to them. Surviving the test of time and maintaining a level of play that will consistently beat the opposition is a much harder task than acquiring the initial ability to play at a professional level. Most people who take up the game for a living are making a bad decision, because they are predicating their actions on faulty premises, just as the young wannabe with the million-dollar goal did.

It takes a lot of work, knowledge, and abilities to post those top-level numbers. If you are serious about making a living playing poker, think about what you need to live on and what you need as a bankroll. I would recommend that you have 200 big bets for the limit you are playing, plus six months' living expenses. If you are playing higher limits and/or tougher competition, increase the bankroll number to 300 big bets. If you go broke with those bankrolls, you probably should regroup, examine your assumptions, work on your game, and perhaps come back again when you are stronger.

The young wannabe overestimated a few things and underestimated a few others. It was a valuable learning experience for him. He has learned much since then, although there are much easier ways to acquire knowledge without placing your life on an unattainable dream path. If you really want to be a pro player, research what you are getting into, know your limitations, know the landscape, be prepared, and then give it your best shot.

Good luck. As long as you're not in my pots, I'm rootin' for ya.

Roy Cooke played winning professional poker for more than 16 years. He is a successful real estate broker/salesperson in Las Vegas. If you would like to ask Roy poker-related questions, you may do so online at www.UnitedPokerForum.com.