Printable View
Hi all,
I have the trial version of PT4. I thought I try it for free before I buy it and I'm trying to find some of my leaks. There is one statistic I find interesting and it's the my win rate per 100hand (BB/100). I like to think anything positive is good to start with. After playing 4900 hand i'm at +19.56BB/100hand. It's only been 2 weeks and I know I need to play a lot more hands to get my true win rate. I'm just wondering what is an average win rate?
Looks like you're using the PT win rate of BB/100, rather than bb/100. Put simply, 20BB/100 = 40bb/100.
Generally speaking, the average "win" rate at any stake will be a loss equal to the rake. I'd estimate this to be -8bb/100 on Stars micros. Any win rate after the rake is considered good and puts you in the minority of players. At 2nl-10nl, I'd say anything over 10bb/100 is good, with 3-5bb/100 decent after that. Win rates can vary massively though across sites and depending on how many tables you play (and skill, obviously).
You will probably need at least 100k hands at any stake to have a true idea of whether you're a winner though, but I'd caveat that by saying sometimes you can be very confident after 10k hands if you quickly realise a huge chunk of the player pool is bad. You'll then just need to grind through more hands to prove to yourself that you're a winner at a given stake.
I agree I need to play a lot more hands to find my true win rate but I'm confused with BB/100 and bb/100. What's the difference?
I've been playing 2NL for a few months but only been using PT4 for 2 weeks so I don't have a good history or record of my sucess and failures other than seeing my bankroll slowly move up.
BB/100 refers to big bets won per hundred hands, rather than big blinds. A big bet is effectively 2bb, and its origin comes from limit holdem iirc. bb/100 seems to be the convention for quoting no limit win rates.
micro stakes are weird... while you should have a higher winrate given how bad opponents are (lol @ my nickname) you should also know that rake is such a big factor as it takes (depending on site and stakes) +- 12bb/100 ... which already in a start very high winrate to begin with just to brake even (esp for new players ) that's why rakeback is such an important factor on micro stakes (and rake % on site as some sites (like pokerstars) take less rake then other EU networks)
also 4900 hands is very small sample to talk about winrate... 200k + is small but it's something to begin with
OK thanks for the feedback. I look forward to playing more and getting more stats. I agree my winrate seems low however I also like to think playing Omaha H/L and splitting pots will have an impact with my win rate too.
How do you compare win rates for different games? NL Holdem, Limit Holdem, Pot Limit Omaha and NL Omaha H/L.
I'm not playing many games beside NLHE but I know that PLO is over raked on microstakes (insane rake)... but on the other hand ppl suck more at it so it's ok to give it a try (maybe avoid zoom games as rake is gonna kill you )