How many Earth-sized planets have been discovered with ground-based telescopes using the transiting techique? The answer will be somewhere between zero (around solar-type stars) and not many if you restrict the sample strictly to Earth-radius and below.
The problem is not the signal-to-noise ratio in your data. If you had a big enough telescope you can easily collect enough counts to significantly detect a 0.01% dip in light - though you would need to make sure the starlight was spread over many pixels on your detector, since a dip of 6 counts in 60,000 is not statistically significant.
No, the problem for a ground-based telescope is that there are all sorts of other things that cause the brightness of a star to vary by much more than 0.01% over the period of a few hours as a pnaet moves into transit and then out again.
Your only hope with ground based telecopes is to choose much smaller and less luminous stars, so that the transit depth is more like 1%. This is how the TRAPPIST small telescope at La Silla in Chile works and it has discovered Earth-sized planets around very low-mass and small stars (e.g. Trappist-1).
So your best best is to chase small planets that are orbiting very small stars. You will not be able to spot a transit of an Earth-sized planet around a Sun-like star using a ground-based telescope.
To illustrate the problem - here is discovery data and follow-up photometry for the Trappist-1 planets from Gillon et al. (2016). The upper transit is I guess representative of the discovery data, taken in the near-infrared with a 0.6-m telescope in the near-infrared. The subsequent transits are follow up on a 2-m, a 3.8-m and an 8.2-m telescope resepectively. The light curves improve a bit in quality, but not massively and not in proportion to the factor of 100 gain in aperture area. The problem is that the star is also variable at some level as well as the problem of controlling for variations in atmospheric extinction. And these observations have been performed as carefully as possible.
The upper curve is probably representative of what a really good, dedicated amateur programme could produce. The scatter on the data is of order 0.1% and thus you can see a 1% transit reasonably well. A 0.01% transit would not be detected with any significance.