2-4, 3-6, and 5-10

[puckboy]

Hi All

What is a reasonable expected hourly rate at these limits for someone with above average skills, but certainly not world class??

Thanks

[sfer]

0 <= Win Rate <= infinity

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
0 <= Win Rate <= infinity

[/ QUOTE ]
That's loser talk.

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
0 <= Win Rate <= infinity

[/ QUOTE ]

don't tell me you have a room with an infinite number of monkeys playing an infinite number of poker games..

true monkeys are smaller than humans, but I still think we could find a reasonable cap to our expected winrate if we determined the maximum sustainable biomass of said monkeys.

[Festus22]

For 2/4 in BB's/100,

1 - You're competent.

2 - You're good.

3 - You're excellent.

3.5+ - You're the man.

Subtract 0.25 to 0.50 from the above for each level up.

That's just a WAG.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
That's loser talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recheck the lower boundary. By definition, it's not. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[puckboy]

Thank you

[mistrpug]

What sample size is reasonable before you can get a decent idea of what your winrate is?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
What sample size is reasonable before you can get a decent idea of what your winrate is?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some say 100,000 hands, and by then you'll be a different player anyway. I really wish people would stop thinking about this stuff and just worry about playing well.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
For 2/4 in BB's/100,

1 - You're competent.

2 - You're good.

3 - You're excellent.

3.5+ - You're the man.

Subtract 0.25 to 0.50 from the above for each level up.

That's just a WAG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats a little off, my 2/4 was over 3.5/100 and I'm not even close to excellent

I would say

1- You've read a book, and play tightly

2- you are decent

3- you are good

3.5+ why are you still playing 2/4?


I think a truly excellent player if for whatever reasons played enough 2/4 hands for a true win rate to emerge could take in close to 5bb/100

[spamuell]

I think thats a little off, my 2/4 was over 3.5/100 and I'm not even close to excellent

Sample size? How many tables were you playing?

I'm generally in the who cares camp on this, but 3.5BB/100 is very high. And, you're no Clarkmeister. Not to say that you're not a good poster, but you're not outstanding, so I'm interested.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
I think thats a little off, my 2/4 was over 3.5/100 and I'm not even close to excellent

Sample size? How many tables were you playing?

I'm generally in the who cares camp on this, but 3.5BB/100 is very high. And, you're no Clarkmeister. Not to say that you're not a good poster, but you're not outstanding, so I'm interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

what, im not outstanding?? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I just looked at my old database, im a little bummed, my numbers arnt as impressive as I remember. (I remembered it being like 3.8/100)

40K hands 3.42BB/100

oops, forgot to add, that was 4 tabling

[mistrpug]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What sample size is reasonable before you can get a decent idea of what your winrate is?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some say 100,000 hands, and by then you'll be a different player anyway. I really wish people would stop thinking about this stuff and just worry about playing well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize. I will stop thinking.

[Bill Smith]

[ QUOTE ]
Sample size? How many tables were you playing?

I'm generally in the who cares camp on this, but 3.5BB/100 is very high. And, you're no Clarkmeister. Not to say that you're not a good poster, but you're not outstanding, so I'm interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to brag, but I have 20k hands between 2/4 and 3/6 and a 3.8 BB/100 win rate, usually playing 4 tables. I'm definitely no Clarkmeister. I think the games are just easier to beat right now, thanks to the influx of bad players.

[MAxx]

spam, you are a straight shooter. it amuses me...man you dont pull any punches.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize. I will stop thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Feel free to do what you want, but what I meant was that I think it's unproductive to fret about winrate and results when how you play is pretty much all you have control over.

[mistrpug]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I apologize. I will stop thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Feel free to do what you want, but what I meant was that I think it's unproductive to fret about winrate and results when how you play is pretty much all you have control over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but winrate is important to know as far as when to have enough confidence to know when you can move up levels. It's not like I want I want some magic number where I can say, "I know for sure that my winrate is x."

[krishanleong]

Stats so far for 2/4 are 4.22BB/100 for 32,263. Not a huge sample I know. I play 4 tables. Just moved to 8 in the last 6000 hands.

[Jimbo720]

I was at 75BB/100 for like 10 hands.

[Holm Fries]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I apologize. I will stop thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Feel free to do what you want, but what I meant was that I think it's unproductive to fret about winrate and results when how you play is pretty much all you have control over.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point. However, I think that it is disingenuous to say that you should never look at $ results and focus on playing well. It is the nature of the beast. If you understand the factors that impact your winrate, you can make adjustments to how you play. It isn't so easy to bifurcate the two.

HF

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
Stats so far for 2/4 are 4.22BB/100 for 32,263. Not a huge sample I know. I play 4 tables. Just moved to 8 in the last 6000 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can you handle 8? dual monitors and stretch out your time limit on most tables? i'm slowly starting to play 2-3 and can't imagine dealing with 8 at once....

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
how can you handle 8? dual monitors and stretch out your time limit on most tables? i'm slowly starting to play 2-3 and can't imagine dealing with 8 at once....

[/ QUOTE ]
Many people do this. Having two monitors so you can display all 8 tables with no overlap helps. Like anything, you just get used to it eventually.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how can you handle 8? dual monitors and stretch out your time limit on most tables? i'm slowly starting to play 2-3 and can't imagine dealing with 8 at once....

[/ QUOTE ]
Many people do this. Having two monitors so you can display all 8 tables with no overlap helps. Like anything, you just get used to it eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

having just one and not being able to hit 1600x1200 really makes it harder for me to deal with the overlap, etc...a couple monitors at a nice small resolution could work...but i'm far away from that at this point....
thanks!

[krishanleong]

just takes a bit of time and practice. Keep adding one at a time, make sure you go dual monitor after you get to four. Pushing yourself to use more tables in my opinion is one of the best ways to improve as a player.

[asofel]

[ QUOTE ]
just takes a bit of time and practice. Keep adding one at a time, make sure you go dual monitor after you get to four. Pushing yourself to use more tables in my opinion is one of the best ways to improve as a player.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would think it'd be hard to keep track of the intangibles...who bet what at which point, player profiles (even using notes), earlier rounds, etc...I'm sure that improves after a while as well...and yeah, it seems like most multitable here...i've done well when i've stayed within my limits, and badly when i go too high, so like you said, i think i'll slowly ramp up and not try and rush anything...

[krishanleong]

I hate to dignify this useless post with another useless post. But hey, I'm only human. Stats are stats, take em or leave them as you like. I'm not pushing a particular interpretation of winrate. If you think I am fabricating stats, I'd take offense.