To BB or Not to BB or What?

During my readings here and elsewhere I've become confused by the usage of BB/100.

I've seen some here describe it as "Big bets"/100 (hands). In PT, as far as I recall, it stands for Big Blinds/100. For NL that equates to 2 Big Blinds/100, I believe.

So, what exactly is a "Big Bet"? If you're playing 1/2 buck limit, wtf is a big bet? If there is such a thing, surely it cannot be a standard measurement.

Excuses if I'm being daft here.

Jigs

Win rate is defined as Big Bets /100.

A Big Bet in Limit is the min bet on the turn and river. In a 1/2 limit game, Small Blind is .50, Big Blind is 1 and the Big Bet is 2.

Since NL does not have fixed betting, there really is not a Big Bet, thus it is 2 time the Big Blind /100 (which is the same as limit)

Hope this helps

Thanks Jes, but where I play, a .25/.50 table, means small blind is .25 and the big blind is .50. I assumed that there same rule applies as you go up. So the big blind at a 10/20 dollar table is 20 bucks. Is this not so?

So my reasoning says that the big blind is the same as the "big bet".

Is it fair to say that the big bet in limit is always the upper end of the table name. Hence 1/2 is two, 3/6 is 6, etc.?

Cheers,

Jigs

I think there was another post on this recently which I'm not positive there was a conclusion. PT defines BB/100 as "big bet"/100 where "big bet" = 2 x Big Blind. So, when people talk of 20 BB/100 being great for NL is everyone on the same page? I checked my stats (beginning 09/01/2005 when I started using PT) and I'm at 15.6 at 25NL 3700+ hands. I'm doing good, but I don't feel like I'm killing the game. So, I'm confused about 20 BB/100 in relation to PT.

Any good 25-50NL players care to share their BB/100 from PT? Or anyone know the real answer?

Glad I'm not the only one who's confused by this.