What is a good BB/100 hands win rate?

I don't know really what is considered "good" as far as win rates in terms of BB/ 100 hands. Any comments are welcome. I know there isn't a definitive answer, but maybe there is a loose guideline so I can rate my play.
Duckslayer2k

Originally Posted by Duckslayer2k

I don't know really what is considered "good" as far as win rates in terms of BB/ 100 hands. Any comments are welcome. I know there isn't a definitive answer, but maybe there is a loose guideline so I can rate my play. If you are interested, see my previous post for my PT stats (link below) and help me improve my play. Thanks

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-45678.htm

Duckslayer2k

i think 5bb/100 is a fine goal for small stakes. not sure for middle/high stakes.

Sample size should be over 10K hands preferably 50K hands.

I speak only about games at 10-100 NL/PL.

5 BB/100 is ok at small stakes if your winrate is lower than 5 you
should examine your game thoroughly.

10 BB/100 is doing very good in and I think its possible at 25-100 NL/PL.

Over > 10 BB/100 is crushing the game.

I can do 20 BB/100 in 25 PL consistently (100k hands).

10 BB/100 is possible at 100NL and there are lots of guys who can
do that. Thats my current goal.

T.

Originally Posted by Duckslayer2k

I don't know really what is considered "good" as far as win rates in terms of BB/ 100 hands. Any comments are welcome. I know there isn't a definitive answer, but maybe there is a loose guideline so I can rate my play. If you are interested, see my previous post for my PT stats (link below) and help me improve my play. Thanks

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-45678.htm

Duckslayer2k

7k hands means almost nothing when it comes to long term winrate.

Originally Posted by Duckslayer2k

I don't know really what is considered "good" as far as win rates in terms of BB/ 100 hands. Any comments are welcome. I know there isn't a definitive answer, but maybe there is a loose guideline so I can rate my play. If you are interested, see my previous post for my PT stats (link below) and help me improve my play. Thanks

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-45678.htm

Duckslayer2k

if you are making money your winrate is good enough.
If you have the br, move up, do not look at your winrate and think 'omg, my winrate sucks, it should be higher' Anyone who tells you this, that your bbs/100 rate is not good enough (when you play smaller stakes than 200nl) is not aware of how useless a stat winrate is.
If you really need a stat to define how well you are doing playing small stakes poker use $$$$ Per hour.

However, a guide is that 5-10bbs/100 is destroying the game at small stakes, but really you should be concentrating on $$$ per hour that leads to bankroll growth. Bankroll growth is your sole concern at anything less than 100nl. When you get to 2k or 2.5k bankroll and are rolled for the 100nl game, then you can begin to consider your bbs/100 rate as a marker of how good a player you really are and whether you have any leaks.
Until then, its a case of making money and getting to 100nl. Make 2k or 2.5k bankroll your first major target, not bbs/100 rate.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Originally Posted by Duckslayer2k

I don't know really what is considered "good" as far as win rates in terms of BB/ 100 hands. Any comments are welcome. I know there isn't a definitive answer, but maybe there is a loose guideline so I can rate my play. If you are interested, see my previous post for my PT stats (link below) and help me improve my play. Thanks

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-45678.htm

Duckslayer2k

if you are making money your winrate is good enough.
If you have the br, move up, do not look at your winrate and think 'omg, my winrate sucks, it should be higher' Anyone who tells you this, that your bbs/100 rate is not good enough (when you play smaller stakes than 200nl) is not aware of how useless a stat winrate is.
If you really need a stat to define how well you are doing playing small stakes poker use $$$$ Per hour.

However, a guide is that 5-10bbs/100 is destroying the game at small stakes, but really you should be concentrating on $$$ per hour that leads to bankroll growth. Bankroll growth is your sole concern at anything less than 100nl. When you get to 2k or 2.5k bankroll and are rolled for the 100nl game, then you can begin to consider your bbs/100 rate as a marker of how good a player you really are and whether you have any leaks.
Until then, its a case of making money and getting to 100nl. Make 2k or 2.5k bankroll your first major target, not bbs/100 rate.

oh ya that too

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

However, a guide is that 5-10bbs/100 is destroying the game at small stakes, but really you should be concentrating on $$$ per hour that leads to bankroll growth. Bankroll growth is your sole concern at anything less than 100nl. When you get to 2k or 2.5k bankroll and are rolled for the 100nl game, then you can begin to consider your bbs/100 rate as a marker of how good a player you really are and whether you have any leaks.

I've never really bought into this argument. I'd rather be crushing less tables at any given stake rather than adding more to multiply the earnings from a marginal winrate, not to mention the rake.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

However, a guide is that 5-10bbs/100 is destroying the game at small stakes, but really you should be concentrating on $$$ per hour that leads to bankroll growth. Bankroll growth is your sole concern at anything less than 100nl. When you get to 2k or 2.5k bankroll and are rolled for the 100nl game, then you can begin to consider your bbs/100 rate as a marker of how good a player you really are and whether you have any leaks.

I've never really bought into this argument. I'd rather be crushing less tables at any given stake rather than adding more to multiply the earnings from a marginal winrate, not to mention the rake.

so you'd rather make less $?

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

However, a guide is that 5-10bbs/100 is destroying the game at small stakes, but really you should be concentrating on $$$ per hour that leads to bankroll growth. Bankroll growth is your sole concern at anything less than 100nl. When you get to 2k or 2.5k bankroll and are rolled for the 100nl game, then you can begin to consider your bbs/100 rate as a marker of how good a player you really are and whether you have any leaks.

I've never really bought into this argument. I'd rather be crushing less tables at any given stake rather than adding more to multiply the earnings from a marginal winrate, not to mention the rake.

That logic is somewhat silly. All that matters is your hourly rate. At some point there are diminishing returns for multitabling (you can make more money 6 tabling than 16 tabling for example) but if you can make more money with 2 bbs/100 on 6 tables than 10bbs/100 on one table, than the correct choice is obvious.

I think the key is finding how many tables maximizes your hourly winrate, whether that be 1 or 12.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

so you'd rather make less $?

I don't think I said that.

I just think every beginning player should concentrate on getting better game first and becoming a better muti-tabler second. In my experience, >10ptbb/100 is very doable up to 100nl.

Originally Posted by izybx

All that matters is your hourly rate.

Only if that's all that matters to you...

Originally Posted by izybx

I think the key is finding how many tables maximizes your hourly winrate, whether that be 1 or 12.

Agree. However, I think far too many players play as many tables as they physically can, not as many as would actually be optimal.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by izybx

All that matters is your hourly rate.

Only if that's all that matters to you...

Are you one of those "I like the challenge" guys?

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by izybx

All that matters is your hourly rate.

Only if that's all that matters to you...

Are you one of those "I like the challenge" guys?

It's not about the challenge. It's about learning how to crush the game.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by izybx

All that matters is your hourly rate.

Only if that's all that matters to you...

Are you one of those "I like the challenge" guys?

It's not about the challenge. It's about learning how to crush the game.

Why do you want to crush the game?

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by izybx

All that matters is your hourly rate.

Only if that's all that matters to you...

Are you one of those "I like the challenge" guys?

It's not about the challenge. It's about learning how to crush the game.

Why do you want to crush the game?

Agreed, forget about crushing the game. I might have that mindset in tourney play, but in cash play im trying to make as much money as possible.

You guys are missing the point.

Originally Posted by Warpe

You guys are missing the point.

lol well do you want to crush the game to make money? if so, then why wouldn't you move up/play more tables/do whatever it takes to make more $/hr? i assume from your earlier post that hourly rate isn't all that matters to you so what else is there?

do you want to be good or have a huge bankroll.
That is the question.

I agree with Warpe to an extent, i want to crush games but then i have seen instances of good players running not so hot at certain stakes and not moving up when they should have done because their winrate sucked, which is just a sin.

The other thing to note is that over the number of hands we are talking about to move between stakes at small stakes poker, running good or luck has so much to do with winrate. Thats why i tend to say build a decent bankroll and then sit at the biggest small stakes game, 100nl and see if you can find those leaks over a better sample size.
FWIW, it shouldnt take you much more than 50k hands to get to 100nl IMO, which is a shitty sample size for an idea of your actual winrate, hence why i think its such an overrated stat in the context of small stakes poker.

Warpe is the only person on this thread who has just the right approach IMHO. I would rather earn 10BB an hour and concentrate on actually playing poker (and improving at it) than 12BB/hour playing three times as many tables and making 99% of my actions on autopilot.

Yeah, I like money, but the moment it's the be all and end all of ANYTHING I do is the moment I rethink my priorities.

brag: example of crushing the game

Originally Posted by biondino

Warpe is the only person on this thread who has just the right approach IMHO. I would rather earn 10BB an hour and concentrate on actually playing poker (and improving at it) than 12BB/hour playing three times as many tables and making 99% of my actions on autopilot.

Yeah, I like money, but the moment it's the be all and end all of ANYTHING I do is the moment I rethink my priorities.

*sigh*
We'll agree to disagree (again)

Originally Posted by biondino

Warpe is the only person on this thread who has just the right approach IMHO. I would rather earn 10BB an hour and concentrate on actually playing poker (and improving at it) than 12BB/hour playing three times as many tables and making 99% of my actions on autopilot.

Yeah, I like money, but the moment it's the be all and end all of ANYTHING I do is the moment I rethink my priorities.

so again...you would rather make less $? what are your goals for playing poker? is to make money or is more for enjoyment or a challenge? i think most are doing it just to make as much money as possible. i guess that's where different views stem from.

As I said, I don't want poker to be solely about making money. I earn a decent wage, I don't have debts - the money I get from poker is a nice bit of pocket money but it'll never make a massive, life-changing difference to my lifestyle. I never want to go pro, and right now I really can't imagine ever wanting to play hands where I could lose 4 figures in one go.

Look at it this way. Most, if not all, of the FTRers who play professionally say they don't really *like* poker, they'd play less if they could - the fun has gone out of the game for them, it's a job, a duty. So clearly the sole intention of playing to make as much money as possible is a pretty hollow one.

I personally want to achieve a balance between financial reward, education, enjoyment - oh, and the other things in life. That anyone can be baffled by this approach astounds me.

If I can speak for him, I think Warpe's point was it's better to be crushing the game because then your a much more solid winner. If you're not crushing the game but have a screen loaded with tables you can win more, but you also stand to lose more.

A really good player as we all know will make the most when it's to be made and lose the least when he's beat. A semi-decent player with 12 tables going could get a run of "pretty good" hands and lose his money real fast.

Besides, crushing the game means you're capable of moving up. Which will result in more money per hour. Warpe's style of thinking is long term and I agree with his. I would much rather be crushing the game I'm playing so that when I move up levels I'm not just blown out of the water.

More money per hour is short term thinking and that's not what this game's about.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Warpe

You guys are missing the point.

lol well do you want to crush the game to make money? if so, then why wouldn't you move up/play more tables/do whatever it takes to make more $/hr? i assume from your earlier post that hourly rate isn't all that matters to you so what else is there?

If I'm crushing the game at any limit and am bankrolled to move up, I move up. But my definition of "crushing" the game is maintaining a ptbb/100 rate I'm satisified with, because that shows that my play is at a high enough standard to make me confident in climbing the next rung of the ladder.

Maintaining a 3ptbb/100 winrate while 8+ tabling does nothing to develop your play whatsoever, imo, leaving you ill prepared to move up in stakes skillwise. Granted, it may build your bankroll a little faster, but I'd rather be trying to make 10ptbb/100 on 4 tables than 5ptbb/100 on 8 any day of the week.

Being sufficiently bankrolled to move up in stakes is only part of the equation. Your skills also need to be up to par and, as you move up in stakes, reads become ever more important. If you're not honing your hand reading abilities, then you are not improving, and reads are the first thing to get sacrificed when you're playing too many tables.

In the long run, I think the player that is just simply a better player because they worked on their game instead of concentrating solely on their bankroll will ultimately end up making make more money. Last time I looked, I didn't see anyone multi-tabling on the WPT.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Last time I looked, I didn't see anyone multi-tabling on the WPT.

they would if they could

if you are beating your current level and are rolled for the next you should move up since you won't know if you are skilled enough for the next level unless you move up and see for yourself. there are people who fair better at 50nl and 100nl then they do at 25nl.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Warpe

You guys are missing the point.

lol well do you want to crush the game to make money? if so, then why wouldn't you move up/play more tables/do whatever it takes to make more $/hr? i assume from your earlier post that hourly rate isn't all that matters to you so what else is there?

If I'm crushing the game at any limit and am bankrolled to move up, I move up. But my definition of "crushing" the game is maintaining a ptbb/100 rate I'm satisified with, because that shows that my play is at a high enough standard to make me confident in climbing the next rung of the ladder.

Maintaining a 3ptbb/100 winrate while 8+ tabling does nothing to develop your play whatsoever, imo, leaving you ill prepared to move up in stakes skillwise. Granted, it may build your bankroll a little faster, but I'd rather be trying to make 10ptbb/100 on 4 tables than 5ptbb/100 on 8 any day of the week.

Being sufficiently bankrolled to move up in stakes is only part of the equation. Your skills also need to be up to par and, as you move up in stakes, reads become ever more important. If you're not honing your hand reading abilities, then you are not improving, and reads are the first thing to get sacrificed when you're playing too many tables.

In the long run, I think the player that is just simply a better player because they worked on their game instead of concentrating solely on their bankroll will ultimately end up making make more money. Last time I looked, I didn't see anyone multi-tabling on the WPT.

excellent post. I think warpe is talking about how slow skill development is when you play 8+ tables, not when exactly to move up.

imo staying at a lower level a little long is ok to work out some big leaks or skills...then when you do move up, you win and move up again faster compared with being a slightly winning robot all the whole time.
but definitely at some point, you will have the br/skill to "practice" and win at the next level, and it's silly to stay at the lower level.

II think the fact that you can play more hand helps the learning curve (makes you better). Obviously its harder to pay attention. I personally play to pay the bills. Thats all that matters to me whether im 12 tabling nl 50 or 1 tabling nl600. I understand that people have different goals tho.

Back to the original question.

When asking what an optimal bb/100 hand win rate is its important to keep in mind one thing: If your bb/100 rate is above 0.0, then you are an above average player. Yes 5bb/100 is nice, 10 is better and 20 is awesome, but the majority of players are losing players (because of the rake).

A lot of people dont admit they are losing players. I have met VERY few people who say "i have dropped five digits in online poker". But for every person who is up 40k there is someone who is down 40k. For everybody who is up 200 bucks there is someone who is down 200 bucks.

Just to give you some perpective.

So shoot for a positive winrate. Once you get to 3-5 bbs/100 think about moving up. As long as you are in the green in the next limit stay there. Repeat until you have moved to a limit where you are earning a good amount of money, then start cashing some money out. Just my opinion.

martindcx1e - they are playing to win money. but they see the big picture (not that you don't) in a different way.

you might be making more money per hour now. but they are saying that by playing less tables and making less money, that they are improving their games more than you are and after a certain amount time they will become better players than you and they will climb up and up the ladder. While you'll still be playing 10 tables at 100NL they'll be playing 50,000k NL. lol.

I'm not saying this is how it is, but this is their side of the argument. It may not be true what they say and I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but they do make a decent point.
(I'm too inexperienced to have a decision on this, btw)

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

martindcx1e - they are playing to win money. but they see the big picture (not that you don't) in a different way.

you might be making more money per hour now. but they are saying that by playing less tables and making less money, that they are improving their games more than you are and after a certain amount time they will become better players than you and they will climb up and up the ladder. While you'll still be playing 10 tables at 100NL they'll be playing 50,000k NL. lol.

I'm not saying this is how it is, but this is their side of the argument. It may not be true what they say and I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but they do make a decent point.
(I'm too inexperienced to have a decision on this, btw)

I hear what you are saying, but playing less tables=learning more is only true for Low Spans. If you have a high attention span, you can keep up just as much w/ the game w/ multiple tables and also get the benefit of additonal hands.

Originally Posted by dpe8598

I hear what you are saying, but playing less tables=learning more is only true for Low Spans. If you have a high attention span, you can keep up just as much w/ the game w/ multiple tables and also get the benefit of additonal hands.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Try not to insult anyone eh?

It's not a matter of attention span - in fact, live (single-table ) poker is the ultimate long attention span poker game.

Playing multiple tables means that you do lose reads (and saying that the guy across the table from you is 42/6/1.3 is NOT a read) and you're playing more percentages and cards than you are trying to put opp on a hand.

You also can lose a great deal of value on river value bets and marginal calls - these are easily situations where reads come into play.

It's different for different people of course. However I'm lean towards agreesing with Warpe. Canuck power!

Wha-?

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.

Originally Posted by Blinky

Originally Posted by dpe8598

I hear what you are saying, but playing less tables=learning more is only true for Low Spans. If you have a high attention span, you can keep up just as much w/ the game w/ multiple tables and also get the benefit of additonal hands.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Try not to insult anyone eh?

It's not a matter of attention span - in fact, live (single-table ) poker is the ultimate long attention span poker game.

Playing multiple tables means that you do lose reads (and saying that the guy across the table from you is 42/6/1.3 is NOT a read) and you're playing more percentages and cards than you are trying to put opp on a hand.

You also can lose a great deal of value on river value bets and marginal calls - these are easily situations where reads come into play.

It's different for different people of course. However I'm lean towards agreesing with Warpe. Canuck power!

Not an insult at all, but people vary to a great degree in the extent to which they can attend to multiple stimuli. And ones ability to do that is almost certainly correlated w/ how well they can multi-table and still manage higher level play.

There is a great deal of research in this area using Operation Span as well as other measures of working memory. No insult intended, I'd be happy to send you some references.

its ok to play for awhile and get like 20k or w/e hands of 1 tabling and really focusing on getting better at reads but eventually you have to start adding more tables and making more money IMO.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Wha-?

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.

Admit it you old fart. It wasn't that you weren't paying attention - you forgot!

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

While you'll still be playing 10 tables at 100NL they'll be playing 50,000k NL. lol.

But I won't be staying at 100NL. I'll be moving up as fast as my BR permits. That's my whole point. While they are staying behind at a level trying to beat it as bad as they possibly can, I will be moving up. If you just play a solid (loose or tight) and aggressive game and avoid tilting then you can't help but win money. Yes, there will be downswings but that's what your BR is for. There will always be situations where opponents can't help but give you their stack. The more you play, the more times those situations will come up. There are fish at every level. Move up and find them.

if winrate was a concern for small stakes players id still be sat at the 25nl tables on party or even 100nl on tribeca with a 60buy in roll.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

if winrate was a concern for small stakes players id still be sat at the 25nl tables on party or even 100nl on tribeca with a 60buy in roll.

funny thing is that the most respected online high stakes ballaz have said that they didnt win that much at the microstakes instead they moved up and got better by playing better competition at higher stakes ....

Originally Posted by MiJ

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

if winrate was a concern for small stakes players id still be sat at the 25nl tables on party or even 100nl on tribeca with a 60buy in roll.

funny thing is that the most respected online high stakes ballaz have said that they didnt win that much at the microstakes instead they moved up and got better by playing better competition at higher stakes ....

the exact same advice i was given having spent my br on paying off uni tuition fees etc twice.

Originally Posted by MiJ

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

if winrate was a concern for small stakes players id still be sat at the 25nl tables on party or even 100nl on tribeca with a 60buy in roll.

funny thing is that the most respected online high stakes ballaz have said that they didnt win that much at the microstakes instead they moved up and got better by playing better competition at higher stakes ....

And how many inexperienced fish have thought the same thing only to go quickly busto? If you can't crush low stakes you have no reason to move up. For every Miffed there are a dozen disillusioned and broke ex-poker players.

Originally Posted by biondino

Originally Posted by MiJ

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

if winrate was a concern for small stakes players id still be sat at the 25nl tables on party or even 100nl on tribeca with a 60buy in roll.

funny thing is that the most respected online high stakes ballaz have said that they didnt win that much at the microstakes instead they moved up and got better by playing better competition at higher stakes ....

And how many inexperienced fish have thought the same thing only to go quickly busto? If you can't crush low stakes you have no reason to move up. For every Miffed there are a dozen disillusioned and broke ex-poker players.

how can you go broke with proper bankroll management?
How can you go broke if you move up lose 4 buy ins and figure out you suck at those stakes?

My position is stop being scared of making money just because you cant thrash a game at certain stakes, not 'go for broke or go home busto!'

If bankroll management wasnt so important, so much more than bbs/100 then why is it we have a sticky in the beginners circle on it and yet absolutly NOTHING on winrates'
Answer: because winrate is unimportant below 100nl. I still love how moving up automatically makes you a loser and that AA loses its 90% winrate.

That's my point. People who are likely to be impatient about moving up are the same ones who are likely to a) move up underrolled and b) when they start losing, they go on tilt/move up stakes to try and win it back.

These are the idiots who pay us off so maybe I shouldn't be discouraging them. But it's people who say things like "oh the high stake ballaz never bother playing low stakes cos they're such ballaz" who inadvertently give the fish the excuse they need to play out of their comfort zone and go bust.

42

Originally Posted by biondino

That's my point. People who are likely to be impatient about moving up are the same ones who are likely to a) move up underrolled and b) when they start losing, they go on tilt/move up stakes to try and win it back.

These are the idiots who pay us off so maybe I shouldn't be discouraging them. But it's people who say things like "oh the high stake ballaz never bother playing low stakes cos they're such ballaz" who inadvertently give the fish the excuse they need to play out of their comfort zone and go bust.

i made it clear in my first post that Br shoudl determine the stakes you play not bbs/100 winrate. Hence a discusion over being underolled is irrelevant. If you have the br to play certain stakes you should be playing them unless you find you cant beat them, and then you need 15k hands to give an indication of that, and even then, you could simply be running like shit.
My arguement is that bbs/100 is a mute stat below 100nl or 2.5k br where br should determine the games you are playing in. After that then id agree bbs/100 winrate has some element to play in when you should look to move up. Thus being underrolled is an irrelevant arguement.
Id assume nearly all high stakes baller boyz practiced good br management regardless of the game they sat in.

Originally Posted by bigred

42

i can't argue with this lol

ok, so since i'm playing 200NL and i have a bankroll much larger than 2.5k ( i have 18k), what role does winrate have in evaluating my play and determining what stakes I should play at?

According to Miffed BB/100 winrate means nothing under 100NL, but what about over it? PT stats are provided in link on original post. I KNOW that 6.7k hands isn't "enough".. I've played more just not recorded on PT. I plan on recording about 10-15k hands before I move up anyways.

One other tidbit, where can you draw the line between "running good" and actually being a good player and beating the game. Fnord thinks (maybe correctly) that my play has been due to luck. Is this even possible over 7k hands? It isn't an enormous sample but still seems like it is too large to be based purely off of a good run of cards.

Originally Posted by Duckslayer2k

ok, so since i'm playing 200NL and i have a bankroll much larger than 2.5k ( i have 18k), what role does winrate have in evaluating my play and determining what stakes I should play at?

According to Miffed BB/100 winrate means nothing under 100NL, but what about over it? PT stats are provided in link on original post. I KNOW that 6.7k hands isn't "enough".. I've played more just not recorded on PT. I plan on recording about 10-15k hands before I move up anyways.

One other tidbit, where can you draw the line between "running good" and actually being a good player and beating the game. Fnord thinks (maybe correctly) that my play has been due to luck. Is this even possible over 7k hands? It isn't an enormous sample but still seems like it is too large to be based purely off of a good run of cards.

winrates can be drastically different over blocks of like 20k hands or even more. you have the bankroll for 600nl right now. i think you should play 15k hands and move up to 400nl and repeat.

Originally Posted by Duckslayer2k

ok, so since i'm playing 200NL and i have a bankroll much larger than 2.5k ( i have 18k), what role does winrate have in evaluating my play and determining what stakes I should play at?

According to Miffed BB/100 winrate means nothing under 100NL, but what about over it? PT stats are provided in link on original post. I KNOW that 6.7k hands isn't "enough".. I've played more just not recorded on PT. I plan on recording about 10-15k hands before I move up anyways.

One other tidbit, where can you draw the line between "running good" and actually being a good player and beating the game. Fnord thinks (maybe correctly) that my play has been due to luck. Is this even possible over 7k hands? It isn't an enormous sample but still seems like it is too large to be based purely off of a good run of cards.

7000 hands isnt even close to being to large to be just a good run. In fact, that is about precisely how long a good can last, thats why people say wait at least 10 to 15 thousand hands to make any conclusions. I would say that you need a minimum of at least 20 thousand hands to start making any conclusions and to be perfectly honest, it is possible to have a bad run or good run for even 20k hands that isnt indicative of play. I'm not just saying this, it is true.

Nonetheless, if your running very well for close to 10k hands, than you are probably playing pretty well, but you definitely can't start to make any conclusions about long-term winrate. If you show me this winrate over 50k hands I will be impressed.

Originally Posted by Duckslayer2k

ok, so since i'm playing 200NL and i have a bankroll much larger than 2.5k ( i have 18k), what role does winrate have in evaluating my play and determining what stakes I should play at?

According to Miffed BB/100 winrate means nothing under 100NL, but what about over it? PT stats are provided in link on original post. I KNOW that 6.7k hands isn't "enough".. I've played more just not recorded on PT. I plan on recording about 10-15k hands before I move up anyways.

One other tidbit, where can you draw the line between "running good" and actually being a good player and beating the game. Fnord thinks (maybe correctly) that my play has been due to luck. Is this even possible over 7k hands? It isn't an enormous sample but still seems like it is too large to be based purely off of a good run of cards.

Ive just been bonus whoring at 1/2 (limit) and ran -0.8bbs/100 for 15k hands (i play 5/10 10/20 normally) so sure variance can go on for a while, 15k isnt a lot btw, just a round number to use at small stakes.
Fwiw, id play 15k hands at 200nl, show a positive winrate and with your br move up and play 400nl. If you stay positive then build up the br for higher stakes then move up. Obviously if you cant beat 400nl, or over a 15k sample at 200nl you run breakeven then you need to take a good look at your stats and try to figure out if you are making errors or if youve been 1 outerd 6 times in the last 6k hands and lost 6 stacks That can happen, what im argueing is that you need at least 15k hands to have any idea at all if you can beat the 200nl game. If you can, and have the br, id move up because you have nothing to gain by playing in the 200nl game if there is a chance you can beat 400nl.

this thread should have been an episode of Seinfeld. everybody starts making their points. they ague a bit. but it all comes together in the end...sort of.

the only point i can add (there were lots of good ones by all, btw) is winrate can be a measure of how well you are "beating the game." so can hourly. but i all comes down to YOUR personal goals.

are you trying to get rich? are you playing for fun? answers to those questions will dramatically affect your winrate's goal.

i, personally, like to bonuswhore. i beat the 25NL game at about 4.5/100. not great, but not bad, either. i moved up to 50NL after 15k+ and beat that game at about the same winrate, maybe a bit less. moved up to 100NL and saw a lot more variance. my play hadnt changed...i was getting picked off BIG TIME, and my rate suffered.

i was still a winning player (2.2/100 over 22k), but i didnt "enjoy the game" nearly as much. so, i can see the point of just wanting to CRUSH a game...it is fun. but i can see the points of "growing as a player," too.

to grow as a player, you need to sharpen your reads...agreed. but how much can you trust your reads at 25 NL or 50, for that matter? there are simply too many idiots. you will see the same players all the time, but it's the others that you "key in on."

i think you need to get to 100NL before you RELY on your reads more than playing solid poker. and if you want to get good at reads, move over to 6max. you will get better very quickly, or your roll will suffer.

sorry for the long post; i had to say thanks for all the debates, and put in my 10 cents worth.

Originally Posted by Chopper

i think you need to get to 100NL before you RELY on your reads more than playing solid poker.

maybe another choice of words?

did you understand what i meant?

Meh. This argument is never going to end.

I personally play poker because it is a fun way to make money, if there was no money in it for me I would be either playing counter strike or playing with my penis all day. As long as I am marginally winning and properly rolled I will continue to move up. When I become a loser I will move back down and plug leaks.

Originally Posted by Chopper

did you understand what i meant?

i guess. 100nl is still really really beatable by playing ABC poker though.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Chopper

did you understand what i meant?

i guess. 100nl is still really really beatable by playing ABC poker though.

i think i agree with you, but i find the difference between 25 and 50 to be "tightness." and the difference between 50 and 100 to be "aggression." and that is where i come in. i am very "nitty" TAG. probably more like TPA. usually, ABC poker, not a lot of fancy stuff.

so, when it comes to 100NL, the postflop RR usually bumps me off my TPTK style. something i am working on, but find tough...lol. when i "open up," i tend to spew off a stack or two, due to wrong reads, and go back to my TPTK style automatically.