What's an average BB/100 for 25NL?

Just wondering what's considered average. 10BB/100 is obviously considered good. 1BB/100 is not so good. Is 4BB/100 - 6BB/100 usually considered average or what?

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Just wondering what's considered average. 10BB/100 is obviously considered good. 1BB/100 is not so good. Is 4BB/100 - 6BB/100 usually considered average or what?

if you are looking at yourself, 1 buyin per 1k hands is good (25$/1k). that turns out to be 5bb/100 or 10bb/100 depending if you are using big blind or big bet.

if you are looking at an opponent, you must give them respect if they are at least break even over a significant # of hands.

btw, the average player online has a -bb/100, due to the rake.

Originally Posted by TerryToma

btw, the average player online has a -bb/100, due to the rake.

well ya but who figures in that? lol.

anything over 2BB is good but you shouldnt be happy until your beating this level for about 4-5bb

we talking PTBB's or BB's?

Originally Posted by BobbySalami

we talking PTBB's or BB's?

BIg Blinds since he said "10BB/100 is obviously considered good".

If it were Big Bets then 10BB/100 would be excellent.

well ya but who figures in that? lol.

Well, to be a winning player you have to play better than Break Even just to beat the blinds.

When somebody says 10BB/100 they are talking about how much they made after playing the rake, not before. So it is automatically figured in.

So an average player at 50% would be -bb due to the rake. Even a person slightly higher than this may be -bb due to the rake, and then they would be -bb due to better players. Makes you wonder how good you have to play to be +bb.

I would think you would have to be top 30% to be +bb for your table limits.

i meant ptbb..

4-5 ptbb/100 i'd be fine with, but would like to be doing much better than that at 25nl.

My $0.02. PTBB is the same as a big bet. Nobody should measure win rates in big blinds as everyone uses big bets as a measurement. Big bet = 2x big blind.

I feel 12BB/100 hands or better is killing the game. 4-5BB/100 is better than average, but I think would probably be the standard by which most active FTR users would measure an average player. Remember you must have a large sample size to calculate this number. 10,000 hands is enough to measure if you are a winning player, but not enough to hone in on a win rate.

Originally Posted by Silly String

Remember you must have a large sample size to calculate this number. 10,000 hands is enough to measure if you are a winning player, but not enough to hone in on a win rate.

10k hands really isnt enough to determine whether or not you are a winning player.

Alot of this really depends on what you mean by average. As has been said, the "average" player is a losing player. Even at FTR Im not sure that the average player [taking into consideration all posters] is much better than breakeven. If you are talking about the average winning player then id say thats around 5ptbb/100 at 25nl, as you move up the number that would be considered average or crushing a game would obviously go down.

just to clarify....i'm talking about big bets per 100 hands. i seem to consistently hover around 4BB/100. just wondering how i should be viewing that sort of winrate for that level.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

just to clarify....i'm talking about big bets per 100 hands. i seem to consistently hover around 4BB/100. just wondering how i should be viewing that sort of winrate for that level.

That is fine. Im personally "happy" with anything 5 or over, 4 is certainly respectable but there is definitely room for improvement. How many hands have you put in at 25nl? I wouldnt worry too much about a specific winrate, just try to improve your game and your winrate will go up as well, but dont focus just on that expecially without a huge sample.

ya i know my sample size is too small for an accurate winrate. just wondering how it compares vs. most other winning players at the same level.

I started at 5NL full ring, then moved to 10, 25, and now 50. I didn't move up until I was beating the games for at least 7.5 ptbb/100 over a decent sample. I play 25NL 6 max now, about to move up to 50NL. Same win rate, about 8 ptbb/100. I really think these games are beatable for a huge winrate, but you should move up as fast as your bankroll/skill allows cuz the money comes in much faster.

Then again, I'm not exactly a baller. I really like to be overrolled and to be beating the game I'm playing by a really solid margin so the swings won't be as dramatic.

Originally Posted by MiJ

anything over 2BB is good but you shouldnt be happy until your beating this level for about 4-5bb

2 things

1. bb/100 rate is unimportant. Its $per hour that is. You might only run say 5bbs/100 at 100nl for example, but if you ten table thats a fair amount of money per hour.

2. Using proper br management and moving up as your br demands it are more important IMO that bbs/100 will ever be.
It horrifies me to see players playing hugely overrolled at small stakes (ive seen 3k for 50nl etc) This is dumb. There is, especially if you play sites like party, very little difference between 25nl and 100nl if you are at least a competent poker player. Really! Im not kidding. 100nl is a milestone because its the first stage where you will find you might lose pots to people with real hands, or you may find the odd player who doesnt totally suck ass. Also, your leaks will become pronounced. That doesnt mean to say you will lose money, but you may break even, its just dumb to not be playing games you are rolled for. Br management is there to ensure that even if you suck for a little bit at a bit higher stakes you have adequate money to compensate for the learning curve or leek plugging.

I play with a farily safe roll (i never used to) with 2.5k for 100nl, 6k for 200nl and 14k for 400nl. Im not saying being overrolled is bad, but not moving up is worse.
So all in all, your br size is more important than your bb/100 will ever be until you hit 100nl at least imho. I only beat 25nl rather a long time ago for 4bbs/100. So its not important.

I guess then, as my name suggests, that I horrify you Miffed as I am still dinking around at $25 NL with $2500 bankroll

I'm gonna move up soon, I promise

Just makin sure I'm solid at this level for 10k hands or so before I make the trip. I did venture into $50 NL for a bit, hit some real success then followed by some horrible beats and running shitty at every limit I played for about 3k hands and lost some confidence. So I moved down to see where I stand, get some momentum, etc.
But hell I posted nothing but $10 NL hands for the first 9 months or so I was here...biggest bankroll baby at FTR I think!

And to compare notes with you Martin, since we are playing at the same site/stakes...
I'm running 7 ptbb/100 during my daytime play after 8.5k hands...and then I'm running at like 19ptbb/100 at night for about 3k hands (home vs. work pcs so PT dbs are not combined).
All of which represent too small a sample size to mean anything other than that I at least am a winning player, and am currently running pretty well

Most discussions of $$/100 vastly under-estimate the impact of short-term luck and game/seat selection.

Originally Posted by DaHorror

I guess then, as my name suggests, that I horrify you Miffed as I am still dinking around at $25 NL with $2500 bankroll

I'm gonna move up soon, I promise

Just makin sure I'm solid at this level for 10k hands or so before I make the trip. I did venture into $50 NL for a bit, hit some real success then followed by some horrible beats and running shitty at every limit I played for about 3k hands and lost some confidence. So I moved down to see where I stand, get some momentum, etc.
But hell I posted nothing but $10 NL hands for the first 9 months or so I was here...biggest bankroll baby at FTR I think!

And to compare notes with you Martin, since we are playing at the same site/stakes...
I'm running 7 ptbb/100 during my daytime play after 8.5k hands...and then I'm running at like 19ptbb/100 at night for about 3k hands (home vs. work pcs so PT dbs are not combined).
All of which represent too small a sample size to mean anything other than that I at least am a winning player, and am currently running pretty well

I understand the mindset, dont get me wrong
I remember discussing it with UG on his blog a while back.
I just like to tell you to figure out your profit then quadruple it. Thats what you would have amde playing 100nl (in all likeliness)

The actual fact also is that 50nl is often a pain in the ass becasue it is often a freaking nitfest of 25nl graduates with little long term skill who just camp whereas 100nl is not.

Miffed: Your posts are good.

That's all.

Even at FTR Im not sure that the average player [taking into consideration all posters] is much better than breakeven

I would venture to disagree here. The fact that the people take the time to come to this site and learn/discusss means at the very least that they are trying to improve. Just that puts us above 90% of the players on the major sites who venture in for a gambool and luckbox tourney players.

I know there are great players, both live and online, that have never seen this website, as there are some on this site, who dont have a clue about what they are doing, but I think most people on FTR are winning players, or will be, once they have played long enough for the luck to even out.


I think the main reason people fail is they don't have the BR to make it around the newbie circle of death (the one post that has helped me the most) a couple of times. Running at 65BB/100 for 1k hands is not playing godly poker, it's called running hot.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

The actual fact also is that 50nl is often a pain in the ass becasue it is often a freaking nitfest of 25nl graduates with little long term skill who just camp whereas 100nl is not.

miffed would you suggest not even moving to 50NL and just whoring 25NL til rolled for 100NL?

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

The actual fact also is that 50nl is often a pain in the ass becasue it is often a freaking nitfest of 25nl graduates with little long term skill who just camp whereas 100nl is not.

miffed would you suggest not even moving to 50NL and just whoring 25NL til rolled for 100NL?

That sir, is an awfully good question.

I think there is also a question of getting used to stakes. If you played 25nl then jumped straight to 100nl without playing 50nl or deepstack 25nl(still available at some sights) then betting $40 on the turn with tptk for the first time might be a bit scary. However, this shouldnt be a problem because making correct decisions is part if the game we play and amounts should only be interesting to us in that they are the correct amount to bet, not how much they actually are. But we all know this isnt true. The first time i bet $658 and was all in at 400nl with middle set i bricked my pants a bit because it was the biggest bet id probably ever made (thats a weeks wages to most people i know). It has its effects.

Would i reccomend it? No. I thin kyou can beat 50nl easily enough, you just have to avoid the tablecaptain campers who are more pronounced at those stakes than anywhere else IMHO.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

The actual fact also is that 50nl is often a pain in the ass becasue it is often a freaking nitfest of 25nl graduates with little long term skill who just camp whereas 100nl is not.

miffed would you suggest not even moving to 50NL and just whoring 25NL til rolled for 100NL?

That sir, is an awfully good question.

I think there is also a question of getting used to stakes. If you played 25nl then jumped straight to 100nl without playing 50nl or deepstack 25nl(still available at some sights) then betting $40 on the turn with tptk for the first time might be a bit scary. However, this shouldnt be a problem because making correct decisions is part if the game we play and amounts should only be interesting to us in that they are the correct amount to bet, not how much they actually are. But we all know this isnt true. The first time i bet $658 and was all in at 400nl with middle set a bricked it a bit because it was the biggest bet id probably ever made. It has its effects.

ya i'm sure it's rough psychologically skipping a level, but if one can handle it it sounds like skipping 50nl is a good idea.

Originally Posted by johnny_fish

Miffed: Your posts are good.

That's all.

i hope thats genuine lol

The fact is and i'll say it without embaressment or watnot, it was one post that opened my eyes to how i should be playing poker, and it was fnords post on implied threat. Up until then i was a solid but not special poker player who could make hands and get paid. But beyond that i sucked.
After fnords thread i understood that all the things i knew i hadnt put together yet.
I also vote for that thread to be stickied, it was a great discussion. Ill go bump it to now.

Martin....taking your question literally, the average is something like -5BB/100. Rake alone is -2BB/100 right off the top and most players are losing $ so I estimate -5BB/100 is "average". For the average winning player at $25nl, I'd say it is more like 3-5BB/100. I managed 11BB/100 over 27k hands...that is way above average but I still honestly don't consider myself a good player. I also would recommend NOT skipping $50NL and moving to $100NL. I am in the process of moving to $100NL from $50nl and am finding it difficult to get used to the bet sizes and the play style. $50NL is full of fish and $100NL seems to have a lot more "crafty" players who read hands MUCH better than the donks at $50nl. In just a few sessions of $100nl, I have already paid off more sets than I do at $50nl in a month. Like I said, viallins are much more crafty and disguish their hands well. Maybe I just ran into the few that do that but damn, it is a lot tougher than many of you make it sound.

Originally Posted by djzcko

Martin....taking your question literally, the average is something like -5BB/100. Rake alone is -2BB/100 right off the top and most players are losing $ so I estimate -5BB/100 is "average". For the average winning player at $25nl, I'd say it is more like 3-5BB/100. I managed 11BB/100 over 27k hands...that is way above average but I still honestly don't consider myself a good player. I also would recommend NOT skipping $50NL and moving to $100NL. I am in the process of moving to $100NL from $50nl and am finding it difficult to get used to the bet sizes and the play style. $50NL is full of fish and $100NL seems to have a lot more "crafty" players who read hands MUCH better than the donks at $50nl. In just a few sessions of $100nl, I have already paid off more sets than I do at $50nl in a month. Like I said, viallins are much more crafty and disguish their hands well. Maybe I just ran into the few that do that but damn, it is a lot tougher than many of you make it sound.

what site?

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Originally Posted by johnny_fish

Miffed: Your posts are good.

That's all.

i hope thats genuine lol

The fact is and i'll say it without embaressment or watnot, it was one post that opened my eyes to how i should be playing poker, and it was fnords post on implied threat. Up until then i was a solid but not special poker player who could make hands and get paid. But beyond that i sucked.
After fnords thread i understood that all the things i knew i hadnt put together yet.
I also vote for that thread to be stickied, it was a great discussion. Ill go bump it to now.

what exactly became more clear to you?

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

what site?

Ongame...Pokeroom/Hollywood/Holdem. I also noticed a lot more blind defending going on at $100nl...something I rarely run into at $50nl. $100NL won't be impossible to beat....just will be much more difficult than I originally thought. 11BB/100 at $25NL, 7.25 at $50nl so I am anticipating it going down to about 4-5BB/100 @ $100NL.

Originally Posted by djzcko

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

what site?

Ongame...Pokeroom/Hollywood/Holdem. I also noticed a lot more blind defending going on at $100nl...something I rarely run into at $50nl.

it seems to me that money made from floaters and non-believers when you have a real hand could make up for the people not stacking off with middle pair anymore. that + rakeback = to me...am i wrong here?

Originally Posted by djzcko

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

what site?

Ongame...Pokeroom/Hollywood/Holdem. I also noticed a lot more blind defending going on at $100nl...something I rarely run into at $50nl. $100NL won't be impossible to beat....just will be much more difficult than I originally thought. 11BB/100 at $25NL, 7.25 at $50nl so I am anticipating it going down to about 4-5BB/100 @ $100NL.

that's good for 100NL i believe

Originally Posted by DaHorror

(home vs. work pcs so PT dbs are not combined).

I want your job.

Originally Posted by djzcko

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

what site?

Ongame...Pokeroom/Hollywood/Holdem. I also noticed a lot more blind defending going on at $100nl...something I rarely run into at $50nl. $100NL won't be impossible to beat....just will be much more difficult than I originally thought. 11BB/100 at $25NL, 7.25 at $50nl so I am anticipating it going down to about 4-5BB/100 @ $100NL.

the pokerroom 100nl game is soft. 5max is zomg soft.

and as said, 5bbs/100 is a good winrate. If you run that good at 100nl then 200nl youll find you make a fair amount of cash.

LOL yea no ya don't - I'll probably be layed off soon anyway

Oh and Martin, $50 NL at Ongame is not really a rock-fest like it probably is at plenty of other sites...hell one of my beats was KK vs. J2s allin on a J hi flop rivering a 2...other was my set of 4s rivered by JJ that couldn't fold on a low card flop and turn where i pushed.
What I did find is that there are even more people who will 'float' on you or at a minimum call your flop bet with their pairs to see whether or not you are just c-betting.
Otherwise it's still the same bunch of chase monkey goofballs from $25 NL.
Even so, I agree with Miffed that there are 'more' of the set-camping rocks lurking - but with the HUD and paying attention they are easy to spot/avoid. And they fold a lot pre and postflop anyway.

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

it was fnords post on implied threat. Up until then i was a solid but not special poker player who could make hands and get paid. But beyond that i sucked.
After fnords thread i understood that all the things i knew i hadnt put together yet.
I also vote for that thread to be stickied, it was a great discussion. Ill go bump it to now.

where is that? I can't find

Fnord's implied threat post and the pressure point article got me thinking a lot about position and other stuff too...it's at http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=30048

And I totally agree about ongame...++++ev to play there.

Originally Posted by martindcx1e

ya i know my sample size is too small for an accurate winrate. just wondering how it compares vs. most other winning players at the same level.

Meh, my ptbb/100 @ $25 since I started 6max is 9.82 after 21,690 hands. I played 23.73/9.89/2.57. I believe I could have had at least a 13bb/100 if not for tilting. Right now at the $50 I have a 5.87bb/100 after 63k hands and if not for tilting esp. after taking losing shots at the $100 could have been between 11 and 14.

My style for the most part is try to play what looks like loose/aggressive to people and showdown SCs and trash after raising pf and playing very good postflop poker because that's where the money is at.