The ranges on this post are absurd. Both in terms of the numbers and by using hours instead of number of hands.

2BB/hour for 1 table is soundly beating the game, probably even destroying it. Online full table is ~75 or less hands per hour?

My 2/4 win rate is at between 2-3BB/100. But these things are hard to nail down as you need such a large sample size. Don't even pretend you have a realistic win rate if you haven't had a streak of "f'n fish chase and catch everything." -100+ BB swings are a mathematical certainty. For NL, -10 buy-ins is not at all uncommon. My worst was around -12.

I played under 1k hands of 5/10 6 max for a while and cleared nearly 100BB. I know better than to claim my win rate is anywhere near 10BB/100. 1-2BB/100 is probably a better guess.

When you're running good it's really easy to over-rate your long term win-rate. It's really easy to forget about the week the deck bitch-slapped you and remember the big scores. Once you factor it all in, a good win-rate doesn't look that impressive for any game.

Consider that table selection is a big factor on win-rate. Different approaches do well at different tables. Good/tricky tight/passive players with enough spine to stand me down give me fits! Where-as I can run over weak/tight often enough, bring high card power + folds to bear against loose/passives and will value (re)-raise loose/aggressives to a rather rapid death (as I'm willing to concede a big pot when I catch an unlikely second best.)

Read ScGolfer's recent post, to get an idea of what bad luck can do. Ttanka had a post like that a while ago too. Speaking of him, I would be *very* interested to see the details behind the results he puts up. I'm curious what his sample size is and what his real win rate looks like. Monthy profit leaves out a lot of data.