|
I have made a new perspective on this matter recently. I used to think I should get my winrate as high as possible, but now I've basically resigned in the fact that from time to time, I *will* donk off some buy-ins.. not card variance, but making plays you normally never make. Take them all as variance, and put in more hours.. then a 15ptBB/100 at 10NL (3tabling 6max) seems nicely sustainable (I have this clocked at 20k hands now) and it gradually goes down as limits go up.
I also figured that once you play higher stakes, like 200NL and up.. you don't even need to be a big winner to make good money. Just put in the time and play enough tables consistently.
Let's say you can run at 3 ptBB/100 at 600NL playing 4 shorthanded tables.. that's about $100/hour.. and you put in 4 hours per day.. that'd be $12k per month. That's sick 
What I'm trying to say is.. maybe it's also a good idea to look at the absolutes. Let's say you can run at 12 ptBB/100 at a given stake playing 2 tables, or 8 ptBB/100 playing 4 tables. If you play 80 hands per hour per table (average for shorthanded for me) then in an hour of play, the former would net you 19.2 BBs and the latter 25.6 BBs.. much better for you BR even though your winrate dropped 50%!
Or something similar, such as my observation from above, that if you only play when you feel picture-perfect and calm, and your winrate is 20 ptBB/100.. or if you play whenever you don't feel totally shitty, your winrate is, say, 13 ptBB/100 but you can put in 3x the time.. then the latter is "better" as in, you make more money.
Just something to think about.
|