http://www.rakebacknation.com/?affiliat
Make sure to use signup code jhub for 33% rakeback when signing up for Cake Poker. Make sure you type it in as the SIGNUP CODE, not the promotional code or any other code. There's also a 100% deposit bonus up to $500. Transfers do not count as deposits. However, if you get money transferred into your account you will still be eligible for a deposit bonus once you actually make a deposit. If you need help getting money into Cake I usually have excess money in there & can swap money for money on another site where I have an account. Just post a comment on my blog or email me.
Here's some pictures of my new son Gunnar & his parents & a leaf:
In case you didn't notice, he's adopted. We got him last Saturday. He's a yellow lab. While he's peed in the house a lot I think he's been very good for a puppy. He hasn't pooped in the house yet & he's pretty good when in his kennel compared to most dogs. Best of all, I haven't had a losing day since I got him. Perhaps I should mention that I've only played 6 1/2 hours over the course of 2 days since getting him.
Overall poker hasn't been very good. Since I play such a wide range of buy-ins my overall profits rely heavily on a small sample of games at my highest stakes. This can be really frustrating at times since I don't have too much control over my short term results. Here's some sick #s for 2009: Between $500+ on Pokerstars, $500+ on Full Tilt, and super turbos on Cake I'm down a combined $82,890 pre rakeback, & this # peaked around $90K.
jhub30 1,194 -$23 $531 -4% -$27,150 - N/A FullTilt Year2009 S>=500
jhub3000 4,804 -$6 $110 -2% -$29,280 - N/A Cake Year2009 Spd=ST
jhub3000 820 -$32 $543 -5% -$26,460 - N/A PokerStars Year2009 S>=500
If you've read my past posts on variance & table selection you should know that these #s tell us very little about my long run #s at these games. While I'm down overall in super turbos pre rakeback, the good thing is that I'm still up in $500+ over the course of my online career (about $24K over 4,000 or so games across all sites...this # jumps to over $50K if you explude the minuscule >200 games I've played at $1K+). It will probably take me 5+ years to get in a reasonable sample of games at $500+, and the game conditions will obviously change many times during that stretch. The ridiculous swings & lack of control over short term success are just some things you have to deal with if you want to play high stakes & maximize long run hourly rate. Thankfully for me I happen to make a ton of money in rakeback to keep me sane during the rough stretches. For the record I'm looking forward to the ignorant jealous hater comments about how I can't beat the high stakes anymore that this post will inevitably bring. They should be funny as hell like usual.
I'd like to thank everyone who donated to the cancer benefit my brother was raising money for. He reached his goal & I know readers of this blog played a part in that.
The Twins have Vikings have been a blast to watch lately. The run that twins made at the end of the season to win the central was ridiculous, even if they're a big dog to beat the yankees. As for the Vikes, as long as Favre's arm is fine the whole year (a big if) I think they can play w/ anyone in the league.
Results:
Year of 2009:
SNG Profit: $(23,259.28)
Rakeback/Bonuses: $181,972.53
Total SNG Profit: $158,713.25
Staking: $42,219.80
Total Yearly Profit: $200,933.05
http://www.rakebacknation.com/?affiliat
Top Stories
Page Summary
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
mjcace : Dog [+1] - walterzuey : (no subject) [+0]
- bigslick1989 : (no subject) [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- smuveonstars : .. [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Sawheeeet!! [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+0]
- (Anonymous) : Congrats!! [+0]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+1]
Comments
Gl
Thanks,
Hub
So I'm guessing there is a big factor that's contributing to this - be it your bad luck, you playing bad, competition being tougher, whatever - I wouldn't know. But how are other top pros, who play the stakes you do, holding up this year? I don't know if you keep track of their profits or not - but I'm curious if their pre-rakeback profits over the nine months of this year have been low, or atleast lower than last year - like yours have.
Now I understand you talked about variance - however, being a full time player and putting in the hours you do, over the 9 months - isn't it quite a lot of games to even out the variance?
As far why it's lower this year, it's pretty much a combination of what you said: tougher games, bad luck (particularly at highest stakes), & playing super turbos which have ridiculous variance, as well as a higher average stake in general, which contributes more variance. Most of the other well known top players are struggling at the highest stakes as well. Everyone has their ups & downs.
As far as my sample being significant over the course of this year, this might be true if my games were all played at the same stakes. However, I play a range of buy-ins from $50 to $2K, and as I said in my post, when playing such a wide range of buy-ins your results depend heavily on a small sample of games at your highest stakes. I'm going to have bigger up years, but also much bigger down years. It's part of the game.
Look at a player like LuckboxfromHell (FTP), River Prayer (Pokerstars), & HappyLucky (Cake). It's the same player. in 2007 he made more pre rakeback than any other single table SNG player. Last year he lost money pre rakeback. Thus year he is again 1 of the top earners. There's other examples but he's the best I can think of.
GL,
Hub
For the record:
jhub30 2,400 $6 $221 2% $15,048 - N/A FullTilt Year2009 S200-300 SNG Only
jhub30 868 $14 $327 4% $12,013 - N/A FullTilt Year2009 S300-400 SNG Only
Thanks for the love xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo,
Hub
I used to do both but now I do neither. It's just too much of a headache & time consuming.
Sorry, gl,
Hub
-Matt
The rakeback is almost exclusively from myself. I don't get referral money when I refer people to Cake. Instead I have a fixed rakeback % that is much higher than the norm.
GL,
Hub
dogs cool, am a staffordhsire terrier man myself, but yellow labs are just so cute :-)
Gunnar turning over a new leaf = your variance swinging back in your favor? Sounds like a good equation to me!
GL,
69madman69
We aren't sure if we'll be training him to hunt yet.
Lol I still have been doing better since getting Gunnar but nothing special.
GL,
Hub
Conclusion: I have no fucking idea. It doesn't make sense to me either.
GL,
Hub
Mike
2 -20% fish will increase your ROI 6.02% total.
1 breakeven player would drop your ROI 1.79%.
5 breakeven players would drop your ROI a total of 8.42%.
Therefore, the game w/ 2 huge winners & 2 huge fish is actually better because it drops your base ROI 4.67% as opposed to 8.42%. The math is not perfect because when you add the good players & fish together the #s are slightly different (notice how 1 breakeven player drops your ROI 1.79% but 5 don't drop it 8.95%) but I'm not sure how to do it & this is going to be very close to the true #s anyway.
The fish would have to have -13% ROIs or better for the game w/ 5 breakeven players to be better. In that case the "fish" would only increase your ROI a total of 2.01%.
Good question. I think this is the beginning of another table selection post.
GL & Happy Thanksgiving,
Hub
Edited at 2009-11-26 04:38 am (UTC)