What is a realistic BB/100 goal for various levels? [Archive]

BusterStacks

11-08-2004, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably take some heat from 2+2ers for generalizing like this but from the micro limits up to about 1/2 and maybe 2/4, it is very possible to have an absolutely HUGE win rate.

I have recently been watching/play micro limits as I am teaching my sister how to play and dear god are the players absolute trash. I was crushing those games when I knew nothing about Hold Em. Now that I actually know how to play, seeing and playing again at those levels gave me a huge reminder of how bad the average players are.

I would suggest for micro-limits 10bb-12bb/100 is a attainable target.

At Party 0.50/1, 7-8bb/100 is sustainable.

Party 1/2 = 6-7bb/100
Party 2/4 = 5-6bb/100
Party 3/6 = 3-5bb/100
Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply wrong. There's really no way around it. Two things here:

a) These are not your stats

b) These are not anyone's stats after 60k hands.

Stop this trash, will you?

tilting

11-08-2004, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

At Party 0.50/1, 7-8bb/100 is sustainable.

Party 1/2 = 6-7bb/100
Party 2/4 = 5-6bb/100
Party 3/6 = 3-5bb/100
Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Come down to earth my friend.

[ QUOTE ]

Party 3/6 = 3-5bb/100

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor Astroglide, his 2.9 over 100k hands didn't even make your radar for the bottom end of a good win rate at 3/6 -- and that was back when the 3/6 was utterly crushable, unlike, these days, where a few people at each table actually know how to play! I guess he must suck, you should go tell him.

Seriously, I think half the people that post about their winrates here either don't use software like Pokertracker, or conveniently forget to import some of the 200BB downswings they have.

Cosimo

11-08-2004, 05:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably take some heat from 2+2ers for generalizing like this but from the micro limits up to about 1/2 and maybe 2/4, it is very possible to have an absolutely HUGE win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this depends entirely on a lot of variables that make those huge win rates pointless.

* You need awesome table selection. If you only play on Friday and Saturday evenings, I think 7 is attainable by expert players, 5 by extremely good players, and 3 easily by merely good players at the Party micros. I can't even comment on my own results because my 7k hands is insignifigant and I'm about to change limits again!

* You need to be able to read and adjust to your opponents. Multitabling, a source of great profit, seriously bites into getting reads.

* You need to play nearly flawlessly. It takes an expert player to make all the right moves, and that player should be at a higher limit.

I think 7-8BB/100h at the Party .5-1 is sustainable only for the player who makes that game his life. As has been said many times elsewhere, it behooves that player to move up, so there's not going to be anybody here who will beat the .5-1 or 1-2 game for 6+ BB/100h over 100k hands. I'd hate to spend much time concentrating on table selection; normally I'll leave after about a half hour if the VP$IP is under 25%, but even then I could be using signifigantly more sophisticated table-selection criteria. Giving up 3-4 BB/100h in profit in exchange for doubling the number of tables and sextupling the limit seems like a fair trade to me. Even with the same EV, more tables means lower variance.

bicyclekick

11-08-2004, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would wager that nobody is making 4BB/100 over a large number of hands at the current party 15/30.

I would seriously doubt that anyone is even making 3, long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't me, but I'll definately take your wager. Just a note about these stats, a lot is from shorthanded games...hence the higher vpip. Avg players 7.71.

http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~clar0480/4bb100.jpg

spamuell

11-08-2004, 06:12 PM

Kick,

Your stats are very, very impressive, but wasn't it agreed in your "It can happen to you" thread that you were running good? I have no idea how much of an impact this makes on your WR over 90k hands but I'd imagine a significant amount if you were very surprised by a 10k hand break-even stretch.

tilting

11-08-2004, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This isn't me, but I'll definately take your wager. Just a note about these stats, a lot is from shorthanded games...hence the higher vpip. Avg players 7.71.

http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~clar0480/4bb100.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

If this isn't you, then how is it even meaningful? Anyone can convenienently forget to import their bad streaks to pad their results, or for that matter just turn on a filter to take a pretty screen shot.

Besides, anyone who wins at that rate should have waaaaaaaay more than 90k hands in their database as I would imagine they would be playing non stop as an earn of 1.5 million+ per year is possible.

Also, please note, two top posters here couldn't even make $60k in 60 days. If I was beating the 15/30 for 4+bb/100 I'd be pulling in $60k every 2 weeks.

I'd love to see the laughter and mocking that ensues when someone posts the "$60k in 15 days challenge". For crying out loud, everyone gave GoT crap for saying he was going to make $100k in 100 days!
.34
Has someone slipped something in the drinking water here at 2+2?

astroglide

11-08-2004, 07:01 PM

i think 100k in 100 days is doable. the 90k results could be padded but i doubt it with shorthanded stuff thrown in and some healthy cards. considering the bb/100 swings i have seen in both directions well past the 100k mark i'm inclined to think it's more like 400k hands to get a serious, serious mark on one's win rate.

bicyclekick

11-08-2004, 07:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Kick,

Your stats are very, very impressive, but wasn't it agreed in your "It can happen to you" thread that you were running good? I have no idea how much of an impact this makes on your WR over 90k hands but I'd imagine a significant amount if you were very surprised by a 10k hand break-even stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

THEY ARE NOT MY STATS AND THEY ARE NOT PADDED NOR FILTERED

hogger

11-08-2004, 07:52 PM

Hi bycycle
There is problems with this. First there might not be some bad days in here that do not get recorded but more importantly I have been keeping perfect track of my records and noticed something obvious about flawed win rates!
If this guys jumps around allot like I do he will have tons of hands UTG not recorded b/c as soon as you fold you leave and the hand doesn't get recorded!
I have 60k hands in tracker, I have played the cuttoff 30% more then upfront just because I only stay about 3 rounds on average which is a long time for some players.
Go into hero's by position stats, I gaurentee he has atleast 25% less hands recorded upfront then in the back!
He probably has atleast 10 to 15k of hands missing!
And don't try and tell me he waits for it to get recorded b.c no winning player would do that. Time is money!

IMO Hogger

bicyclekick

11-08-2004, 08:14 PM

Blah blah blah.

I wait for the hand to complete, because I want my stats to be correct.

You guys are funny.

Taking things way too seriously. If you dont believe it's true, fine, dont believe it, I really don't care. I'm just the messanger.

bisonbison

11-08-2004, 08:26 PM

What is a realistic BB/100 goal for various levels?

It doesn't matter. Setting a BB/100 goal is like a kid saying "I want to be 6'4" tall". If you have half a brain you realize that very few players can make over 3BB/100 above 1/2. Very few. Those that can are significantly better than your average 2+2er, much less your average online player.

hogger

11-08-2004, 08:36 PM

If you are 6 tabling like you claimed and are waiting for the hand to complete to open a new table then you are the guy taking it way to serious. I really don't believe you would wait for the hand to be over to open more games,and make more money, but if you say so!

Ponks

11-08-2004, 08:56 PM

I always wait for the hand to complete, no big deal to me. I always thought a lot more people would do that too, but I guess not.

Ponks

ActionBob

11-08-2004, 09:08 PM

Isn't all this nonsense about waiting for hands to complete basically irrelevant regarding a large database of older hands since thats a relatively new feature anyway? Using the old method of emailing 100 hands every 15 minutes would get all your hands whether you left the table early or not.

-ActionBob

Lawrence Ng

11-08-2004, 10:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lately I've been winning somewhere around 20BB/100. Do you think this is sustainable?? (nice to be running well).

[/ QUOTE ]

You lucksack.

scrub

11-08-2004, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Poor Astroglide, his 2.9 over 100k hands didn't even make your radar for the bottom end of a good win rate at 3/6 -- and that was back when the 3/6 was utterly crushable, unlike, these days, where a few people at each table actually know how to play! I guess he must suck, you should go tell him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I firmly believe that Party 3/6 is currently beatable for somewhere in between 3 and 4 BB/100.

I know an expert player who makes 4/100 at the 15 game over 100,000 hands.

That being said, very few players play well enough and disciplined enough to achieve these stats. Even fewer of them also think it's worth playing the 3-4 tops tables you'd need to be playing to have a shot at high numbers.

scrub

Equal

11-08-2004, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably take some heat from 2+2ers for generalizing like this but from the micro limits up to about 1/2 and maybe 2/4, it is very possible to have an absolutely HUGE win rate.

I have recently been watching/play micro limits as I am teaching my sister how to play and dear god are the players absolute trash. I was crushing those games when I knew nothing about Hold Em. Now that I actually know how to play, seeing and playing again at those levels gave me a huge reminder of how bad the average players are.

I would suggest for micro-limits 10bb-12bb/100 is a attainable target.

At Party 0.50/1, 7-8bb/100 is sustainable.

Party 1/2 = 6-7bb/100
Party 2/4 = 5-6bb/100
Party 3/6 = 3-5bb/100
Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply wrong. There's really no way around it. Two things here:

a) These are not your stats

b) These are not anyone's stats after 60k hands.

Stop this trash, will you?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol Trolling sure is your specialty isnt it?

Anyway, I should have quantified my statements with a couple caveats:

1 - I am assuming a "great" player

2 - the player's single-minded goal is to have as high a bb/100 figure as possible. So, single-table, great table selection, etc etc.

Just because you think a level is unattainable, doesnt mean it is out of reach. I know of a few players who beat party 15 for close to 4bb/100 (single tabling). It's seems self-evident that then beating the 3/6 for 3-5bb/100 is possible.

Or are you one of those people who thinks bad players are harder to beat than good players?

Please troll somewhere else.

Equal

11-08-2004, 10:52 PM

You know what, I misread the original posters question. He asks about a "realistic" bb/100 amount, not what is possible.

djcolts

11-08-2004, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What is a realistic BB/100 goal for various levels?

It doesn't matter. Setting a BB/100 goal is like a kid saying "I want to be 6'4" tall". If you have half a brain you realize that very few players can make over 3BB/100 above 1/2. Very few. Those that can are significantly better than your average 2+2er, much less your average online player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I didn't quite phrase it correctly. Goal wasn't really the right word - I guess I mean what is a "decent" rate for playing at a certain level.

Paul2432

11-09-2004, 01:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i'm inclined to think it's more like 400k hands to get a serious, serious mark on one's win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistics bare this out. In any group of say 100 players whose true win rate is 3 BB/100 you would expect to find about two of them winning 4 BB/100 over 100,000 hands.

Even after 400K hands, you only know your winrate +/- 0.5 BB with 95% certainty.

This leads to the utterly astonishing possibility that a breakeven B&M player that plays perhaps 10 hours per week could conceivably play for 20+ years and still show a few tenths of a BB profit/100.

Paul

James282

11-09-2004, 02:27 AM

Anyone who can win 1bb/100 is decent, at any level. Honestly I don't think the "maximum" winrate between the 3/6 at party and the 15/30 - assuming good table selection at both levels - is much different at all.
-James

Ulysses

11-09-2004, 04:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
everyone gave GoT crap for saying he was going to make $100k in 100 days!

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave GoT a lot of crap for posting that challenge. Nowhere in that crap did I say I didn't think he could make 100k in 100 days. Many players here are capable of multi-tabling and making $250/hr. That's 4 hours a day of poker for 100 days, far from a Herculean task.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, anyone who wins at that rate should have waaaaaaaay more than 90k hands in their database as I would imagine they would be playing non stop as an earn of 1.5 million+ per year is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

4bb/100 at 15/30 playing 4 tables is about $300/hr. Playing 40 hours a week, that's about $600k. To make $1.5m at that rate 4-tabling, you'd have to play about 100 hours a week.

Many people here with high earn rates play poker as a fun hobby that as a byproduct generates some extra money. If you saw my PT numbers, I guess you'd think I'm an idiot for only playing about 10 hours a week on average.

bicyclekick

11-09-2004, 04:19 AM

I sometimes find myself pretty money driven, but often i'm shocked by how money driven other people are. Maybe you're just saying all that because money has always been an issue for you or your family, and it has been for me to some extent in the past, but at least for me now, now that I have enough to get by and buy most of the things I want(yet, because I grew up the way I did, I still am a thrifty bitch), I don't have a desire to make tons of unnecesary money. I'd rather spend the time with friend sand my gf and doing other things.

There are a lot of greedy people out there who just want to gobble up money for the sake of having it, but for me I'd rather not waste the best years of my life playing non-stop poker CAUSE MONEY MONEY MONEY. Of course I still love playing poker and making money at it, though.

/edit - one other thing is money isn't as great when youre friends don't have any. Because I wanted to go skiing so bad over thanksgiving break and people either had family obligations or no money, I'm funding a good buddies trip. You constantly have to be very careful about it so you don't sound like a pompous ass. Honestly, I'm starting to agree with a few people who've always said "money sucks"

BusterStacks

11-09-2004, 04:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably take some heat from 2+2ers for generalizing like this but from the micro limits up to about 1/2 and maybe 2/4, it is very possible to have an absolutely HUGE win rate.

I have recently been watching/play micro limits as I am teaching my sister how to play and dear god are the players absolute trash. I was crushing those games when I knew nothing about Hold Em. Now that I actually know how to play, seeing and playing again at those levels gave me a huge reminder of how bad the average players are.

I would suggest for micro-limits 10bb-12bb/100 is a attainable target.

At Party 0.50/1, 7-8bb/100 is sustainable.

Party 1/2 = 6-7bb/100
Party 2/4 = 5-6bb/100
Party 3/6 = 3-5bb/100
Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply wrong. There's really no way around it. Two things here:

a) These are not your stats

b) These are not anyone's stats after 60k hands.

Stop this trash, will you?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol Trolling sure is your specialty isnt it?

Anyway, I should have quantified my statements with a couple caveats:

1 - I am assuming a "great" player

2 - the player's single-minded goal is to have as high a bb/100 figure as possible. So, single-table, great table selection, etc etc.

Just because you think a level is unattainable, doesnt mean it is out of reach. I know of a few players who beat party 15 for close to 4bb/100 (single tabling). It's seems self-evident that then beating the 3/6 for 3-5bb/100 is possible.

Or are you one of those people who thinks bad players are harder to beat than good players?

Please troll somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of words with so little substance. Show me 6-7bb/100 at 2/4 then tough guy. Everybody has a friend who does such and such, or knows somebody who... well you get my point. Either way, the two statements I made were true, so unless you are prepared to counter with something concrete, why even do it? I'm not trolling, merely pointing out that you are full of [censored]. It probably just seems like trolling becuase it happens so often.

sthief09

11-09-2004, 05:02 AM

$20,000 in rake!!!

sthief09

11-09-2004, 05:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If you saw my PT numbers, I guess you'd think I'm an idiot for only playing about 10 hours a week on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't. people get too caught up with money, but for me, the I'll take a little extra money and enjoying the game over a lot of extra money and dreading playing everday. money isn't everything. I'd rather enjoy myself. this kind of reminds me of my friends who've graduated that work 100 hours a week as investment bankers so they can retire all burnt out, having completely missed some of the best years of their lives.

Lawrence Ng

11-09-2004, 07:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
/edit - one other thing is money isn't as great when youre friends don't have any. Because I wanted to go skiing so bad over thanksgiving break and people either had family obligations or no money, I'm funding a good buddies trip. You constantly have to be very careful about it so you don't sound like a pompous ass. Honestly, I'm starting to agree with a few people who've always said "money sucks"

[/ QUOTE ]

Not having money sucks, and having too much money also sucks. I guess there really is no balance. I grew up in a poor-middle class family and we were actually quite happy before things improved money wise for us. Once the money started rolling in, so did the materialistic desires.

Bike, have you ever gone out to dinner with a bunch of friends. Then the bill comes and you all have to figure out how much each person owes. Well after 15 minutes of figuring out who owes what, and how each person wants to pay (Interac, CC, or cash..of course there's never a unilateral choice!) you find that maybe the bill is 20 or 30 bucks short.

So for the next 5 minutes no one is willing to fork it up, heck no one even agrees that everyone should maybe pitch in 2 more dollars to even it out? Isn't that sad?

So if I were to fork out that $20 or $30 that is short, would I look like a pompous ass?

Blake Lovely

11-09-2004, 08:41 AM

The rake at low limit on party SUCKS. I cant believe everyone isnt pushing WAY harder for this rake free stuff to get up and going.
In a 1-2 game a 1 dollar rake is crazy, so at low limits the rake alone is hurting your bb/100.
granted the players are bad enough to make up for it some but jesus they are robbing everybody. If it wasnt for the whole affiliate program alot more people would be pushing for rake free.
High stakes online is much better.

I was helping my friend get a bankroll started online by clearing bonuses etc, and he started playing 1-2 limit and I realized how unbearable the rake is at that limit.
thats like 15 dollars per hand in a 15-30.

Scotch78

11-09-2004, 09:40 AM

You should come out with me and my best friend, Stan. After repeatedly going behind each others' backs to pay the tab, we finally decided that whoever wins the most games of pool/darts each night pays the bill.

Scott

bicyclekick

11-09-2004, 11:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Bike, have you ever gone out to dinner with a bunch of friends. Then the bill comes and you all have to figure out how much each person owes. Well after 15 minutes of figuring out who owes what, and how each person wants to pay (Interac, CC, or cash..of course there's never a unilateral choice!) you find that maybe the bill is 20 or 30 bucks short.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I've been lucky that the very few times we've been short we've all just chipped in. It's happened a few more times during poker games where somehow we get off on money. People have been very nice about accepting a few bucks less at the end.

[ QUOTE ]

So if I were to fork out that $20 or $30 that is short, would I look like a pompous ass?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how anyone could say it makes you look like a pompous ass. That's nto what I meant.

ArchAngel71857

11-09-2004, 11:52 AM

If you saw my PT numbers, I guess you'd think I'm an idiot for only playing about 10 hours a week on average.

We don't need to see PT to know that.

ZING!

ah, I kid why? Because I love.

Anyway, my BB/100 at 2/4 was at 7 for a while. then it dropped to 6 once i got ot 15K hands. It was a question whether it was sustainable at 7 or even at 6. After I played 3K hands in one day, my bb/100 dropped to 4.97. I think anything over 5 at limit is ridonkulous. I don't imagine that I will get any higher than I am right now and will slowly close into around 3.5-4 at 2/4. Not because I am that good, but because 2/4 at Party is an orgy of nutballz.

-AA

sfer

11-09-2004, 12:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this kind of reminds me of my friends who've graduated that work 100 hours a week as investment bankers so they can retire all burnt out, having completely missed some of the best years of their lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing that free dinner and a ride home at 2 am in a Lincoln Towncar can make 23 year olds think that they're valued.

Have those comparables on my desk by 8 am tomorrow.

Blarg

11-09-2004, 12:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So for the next 5 minutes no one is willing to fork it up, heck no one even agrees that everyone should maybe pitch in 2 more dollars to even it out? Isn't that sad?

So if I were to fork out that $20 or $30 that is short, would I look like a pompous ass?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your friends suck. I only say that because mine do too, and I've been in that situation many times.

Paying the difference and getting it over with wouldn't make you look like an ass, but it would make you look like a sucker. Because you'd actually be one. And you can count on having to do it over and over again once you're established as the sucker...er...as the "community resource."

Any friends worth a damn will cover their fair share, not try to stiff each other. Especially for 20 or 30 bucks worth of the bill. And if for some reason everyone can't come to an agreement, they'll divide up the extra and each pay equally toward it. Not doing so sucks, and it's not that they should know better - they DO know better. Somebody, or everybody there, is just hoping to scam their own friends. Sucks.

One of the ways of classifying animal behavior is whether they sh** where they eat. Humans often do, but I hate having someone try to be both my friend and treat me like a sucker at the same time. Once you let them get started, they'll just continue to try to sh** all over you as long as you don't do anything to stop it.

tilting

11-09-2004, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
4bb/100 at 15/30 playing 4 tables is about $300/hr. Playing 40 hours a week, that's about $600k. To make $1.5m at that rate 4-tabling, you'd have to play about 100 hours a week.

Many people here with high earn rates play poker as a fun hobby that as a byproduct generates some extra money. If you saw my PT numbers, I guess you'd think I'm an idiot for only playing about 10 hours a week on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had taken from at least one of your posts that you don't even own PT -- didn't you just ask someone in another thread if it was possible to filter by a certain set of criteria? By the way, if you saw my lousy PT #'s, you'd think I'm crazy for playing as much as I do. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

As for 4 tabling only, who plays only 4 tables? The 15 plays so slowly that you can easily do 8 at a time. Playing 1 million hands per year requires no more effort than the amount of time spent on any full-time job. At more than $1.20 per hand that's $1,200,000/yr without even pushing it. Please don't tell me that you or anyone else has the potential to make this type of money in 1 year (especially while online poker is booming), but that you "just don't feel like it". This is hard for me to buy.

One other thing, I found the stats that Kick posted rather odd. The VPIP runs just slightly higher than mine (by about 2%), with the go to showdown slightly higher for me but the win at showdown about the same. However, I win when I see the flop at a considerably higher rate (over 5% higher). So, how is it that my BB/100 is much lower, when I win more hands overall and go to showdown with winning hands more often? Is that just an insanely lucky 90K hands in which he was paid off like a fiend every time he had a hand?

What am I missing?

astroglide

11-09-2004, 02:11 PM

i'm guessing it's the same stats that were posted for the person who had something like 3bb/hd for KK and 4bb/hd for AA. i don't know what the sample size was to determine if they were overdealt for the amount of hands they had played, but they were dealt them while in the blinds an unusually high amount of the time compared to what i've seen. i'm most profitable with aces in my blinds. it's not unreasonable to connect some dots and postulate that it's largely based on AA/KK distribution.

James282

11-09-2004, 02:38 PM

This player also practices the best game selection that I've ever seen. You probably don't.
-James

charlie_t_jr

11-09-2004, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/edit - one other thing is money isn't as great when youre friends don't have any. Because I wanted to go skiing so bad over thanksgiving break and people either had family obligations or no money, I'm funding a good buddies trip. You constantly have to be very careful about it so you don't sound like a pompous ass. Honestly, I'm starting to agree with a few people who've always said "money sucks"

[/ QUOTE ]

Not having money sucks, and having too much money also sucks. I guess there really is no balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

College kids.... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif...Get a couple of ex-wifes and a couple teenage daughters...then talk to me about having "too much money"

tilting

11-09-2004, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This player also practices the best game selection that I've ever seen. You probably don't.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument there James, my game selection sucks, but it's not for lack of effort (well, I sometimes stay in the tough games because I like the practice).

On the whole, the 15 games these days are made up of about 7 other people that I have notes on, most of whom fall into the 20% VPIP 10% PFR territory. When I sit down to play 3-6 handed at tables that have broken up I usually find a couple other players that have the same idea I had, and quite honestly, 1 or 2 of them are usually much better than I am, or so it seems.

Anyways, a little off topic, but my only point being I think it's not so easy to find berry patches in the 15. Good table selection is not so easy if you actually plan on logging any sort of hours. Any suggestions are appreciated.

ActionBob

11-09-2004, 04:23 PM

Anyways, a little off topic, but my only point being I think it's not so easy to find berry patches in the 15. Good table selection is not so easy if you actually plan on logging any sort of hours. Any suggestions are appreciated.

During prime hours and also generally during non prime hours its not difficult at all to 4 table, leave a bad game, and get back in a really good game within a minute or two.

I cant really think of any suggestions, its really pretty simple: leave the bad game and find a new game. Its not that hard.

-ActionBob

MicroBob

11-09-2004, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One other thing, I found the stats that Kick posted rather odd. The VPIP runs just slightly higher than mine (by about 2%), with the go to showdown slightly higher for me but the win at showdown about the same. However, I win when I see the flop at a considerably higher rate (over 5% higher). So, how is it that my BB/100 is much lower, when I win more hands overall and go to showdown with winning hands more often? Is that just an insanely lucky 90K hands in which he was paid off like a fiend every time he had a hand?

What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not just about number of pots you win....but also about the size of the pots you win (or lose).

If he is better at building larger pots when he wins....and is more frequently getting to the show-down more cheaply in the times when he is probably lost...then his win-rate is going to be higher.

MicroBob

11-09-2004, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, please note, two top posters here couldn't even make $60k in 60 days. If I was beating the 15/30 for 4+bb/100 I'd be pulling in $60k every 2 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I followed Schneids thread for awhile....but not the other one (GOT I think??).

Anyway, Schneids had some issues with burn-out and just getting in enough hours and that seemed to be the biggest issue in there.
I have absolute confidence that he could have sustained a win-rate of $1k/day at 10/20 6-max 4-tabling if he had been more motivated to put in the hours. It certainly seemed like being at home, over the summer, with nice weather, and some parents who wanted occasional 'quality-time' and didn't want their son to become an 'addict' all combined to eat into his hours and cause some general burn-out.

At 333hds/hr at 10/20 6-max (1k hds each 3 hours of play) you can make 2BB/100 ($40/100 hds) and make around $400 for each 3 hours.

So even a 2BB/100 player should be able to make $1k/day IF he is willing to put the hours in (7 hours a day or so).

At 3BB/100 (which would be really strong I think at 10/20 6-max) that's $600/1k hds....so just 5 hours of sustained play should get you there.

I have no doubt it CAN be done....but you have to be focused enough to put all the hours in (as well as being good enough to beat the games obviously).

MicroBob

11-09-2004, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, anyone who wins at that rate should have waaaaaaaay more than 90k hands in their database as I would imagine they would be playing non stop as an earn of 1.5 million+ per year is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Gracious Why??

I played MORE hours per week when I was making LESS at the LOWER-LIMITS. It simply took longer to make a reasonable amount of money so I played for longer.

At a HIGHER win-rate at a HIGHER limit I am not forced to play as much per week. I can make twice the amount in half the time and still be socking away a decent amount of dough for a new car/European Vacation/whatever.

The idea that someone who makes $1-mil or more would be MORE inclined to shut themselves away is kind of strange to me.

Lawrence Ng

11-09-2004, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So if I were to fork out that $20 or $30 that is short, would I look like a pompous ass?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how anyone could say it makes you look like a pompous ass. That's nto what I meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Bike,

I didn't mean to incline that you thought I was a pompous ass. I was asking the question merely as it was.

Truth is, some friends of mine did not take it very well that I paid the money up. I think it made them look bad ( or cheap) and they didn't like that. I never even got a thank you from people, not that I expected one. Frankly I just wanted to get out of the restaurant. But my point here is that you are right when it comes to money matters with friends. It has be delicate enough to not hurt the friendship.

Lawrence Ng

11-09-2004, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
After repeatedly going behind each others' backs to pay the tab,

[/ QUOTE ]

With my family, relatives, and good friends - I always sneak in behind and pay everything up front before they even know it. I can't stand fighting over the bill at the table. It looks stupid.

Lawrence Ng

11-09-2004, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Once you let them get started, they'll just continue to try to sh** all over you as long as you don't do anything to stop it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My dad has definitely given me this speech before. I've learnt not to care about what other people think too much about what I do. Yeah I may be a sucker, but at least when I fork out that extra bit, I don't like the sucker, instead it's my friends who like suckers. The small little bit of guilt warrants their attention enough that they'll be more attentive to making sure they pay properly up front.

Well, one time is not so bad, but obviously I'm not going to keep doing this.

Ulysses

11-09-2004, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I had taken from at least one of your posts that you don't even own PT

[/ QUOTE ]

I've owned it for about three months now. Prior to that I always kept very detailed records of my play and earn.

[ QUOTE ]
As for 4 tabling only, who plays only 4 tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect almost all of the few who make 4bb/100 in that game (and probably most of the people who make 3bb/100) play 4 or less. I suspect most people who play for fun also play 4 or less.

[ QUOTE ]
The 15 plays so slowly that you can easily do 8 at a time. Playing 1 million hands per year requires no more effort than the amount of time spent on any full-time job. At more than $1.20 per hand that's $1,200,000/yr without even pushing it. Please don't tell me that you or anyone else has the potential to make this type of money in 1 year (especially while online poker is booming), but that you "just don't feel like it". This is hard for me to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I doubt many of the 8-tablers are making 4bb/100, so I don't know about $1.2M playing 15-30, but I'm pretty sure I could make at least $600k to $800k playing online poker full-time. Many others fall into that category. There's a good chance I make less than that in the next 12 months from my job.

So why don't I play online poker instead? Because I find the idea of playing online poker for 40 hours a week incredibly boring and the idea of doing that for an extended period of time sounds horrible.

For the same reason, I passed up the opportunity to make millions as an investment banker right out of school. You know why? Because I didn't want to be an investment banker!

It always surprises me when people are so surprised that people can prioritize other aspects of their life over making money. And when it comes to making money, there are a lot more interesting and fulfilling ways to do it than playing online poker.

[ QUOTE ]
What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read any hands you've posted, but having read a number of your posts about what you think is possible to make playing online poker, I suspect the main thing is that you just need to improve your poker game.

Ulysses

11-09-2004, 08:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
At a HIGHER win-rate at a HIGHER limit I am not forced to play as much per week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I believe this is the case for many people who love other things in life more than money and poker.

Ulysses

11-09-2004, 08:56 PM

OK. Here's the way to do this without looking like a pompous ass or making an issue out of it. All the money's collected. You need $520 total. You ask the dude counting how much there is. $500. You slip him a $20 and say "sweet, we're good to go." Done. Nobody knows anything happened. On to the bar.

It's much less smooth for everyone if it's announced to the table "Guys, looks like we're $20 short - did anyone not pitch in? Anyone think they're a little short? Uh, Hmmm... Well, uh, should we just toss in $2 each? Uh, Hmmm, what should we do?" Then it's a much more uncomfortable and annoying situation for everyone.

The better solution is to go out with people (this is not a function of how much money they have) who are more prone to leaving extra. Go out with a bunch of waiters and bartenders and you'll always have way too much. As a general rule, I seem to gravitate towards people who just always split the bill evenly except for special cases like the chick who only eats a salad and doesn't drink.

As for being a sucker, I don't think there's any worry of that if you're out with friends and it just worked out that it's actually like $37 each and a few people just put in $35 or whatever. When it's small amounts (like $20 on a big bill), it's likely that nobody actively shorted the tab, it's just that a few people were inadvertently a dollar or two short.

B Dids

11-09-2004, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The better solution is to go out with people (this is not a function of how much money they have) who are more prone to leaving extra. Go out with a bunch of waiters and bartenders and you'll always have way too much. As a general rule, I seem to gravitate towards people who just always split the bill evenly except for special cases like the chick who only eats a salad and doesn't drink.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally on-point.

Obviously this is easier if you roll with people who have enough money not to pick nits over stuff like this, but an even split is so easy. Especially if you're with a group that spends a lot of time together, because it will always even out.

spamuell

11-10-2004, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm inclined to think it's more like 400k hands to get a serious, serious mark on one's win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistics bare this out. In any group of say 100 players whose true win rate is 3 BB/100 you would expect to find about two of them winning 4 BB/100 over 100,000 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that 2 of them would be winning 2BB/100, or does it not work that way?

Can you show the math, or point me to a link or book (preferably link)?

Thanks

Dux McFlop

11-10-2004, 05:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I suspect almost all of the few who make 4bb/100 in that game (and probably most of the people who make 3bb/100) play 4 or less. I suspect most people who play for fun also play 4 or less.

[ QUOTE ]
The 15 plays so slowly that you can easily do 8 at a time. Playing 1 million hands per year requires no more effort than the amount of time spent on any full-time job. At more than $1.20 per hand that's $1,200,000/yr without even pushing it. Please don't tell me that you or anyone else has the potential to make this type of money in 1 year (especially while online poker is booming), but that you "just don't feel like it". This is hard for me to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I doubt many of the 8-tablers are making 4bb/100, so I don't know about $1.2M playing 15-30, but I'm pretty sure I could make at least $600k to $800k playing online poker full-time. Many others fall into that category.
[ QUOTE ]
What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read any hands you've posted, but having read a number of your posts about what you think is possible to make playing online poker, I suspect the main thing is that you just need to improve your poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I long time reader I have to jump in and ask (1st post /images/graemlins/laugh.gif )...what are your win rates then??? Every challenge and every thread discussing them, especially concerning the "elite" 15/30 players, seems to get various comments from the peanut gallery ranging from "2-3BB/100 is incredible, approaching 3 is expert," to "3-4 BB/100 is very good," to "LOL, you are going to beat it for over 2!?"

How come none of you respected posters, who take on challenges (GoT, Schneids, Gonores), offer up your own Win Rates over 150k+ hands??? El Diablo, you said you might not be able to hit $1.2 million, but more like $600-$800k in ayear...does that mean your WR (assuming you hit about a million hands) is around 2-2.5B/100?? If so, then when tilting asks what he doesn't get about people claiming to beat the 15 for over 3, why do you tell him he "just needs to improve his game," like reaching 3BB/100 is just a matter of time/hard work??? Why haven't you, Bicycle, Schneids, Astro, Peter Rus, GoT, Gonores, etc. said "yes, I beat the game for over 3BB/100 for over 100k. It's an attainable win rate." ???

I, for one, have always been curious what your win rates are (if you don't want to post them I'd happily accept a PM /images/graemlins/wink.gif ). It just seems strange to have challenge after challenge, and debate after debate on win rates, and no one actually sharing their WRs.

Instead, you waffle back and forth between giving someone like GoT a hard time about making 100k in 10 weeks, and saying "oh it's easy, just improve your game." However there are never any BB/100 rates posted by these people, just comments like "I don't want to make a lot of money by playing a lot of poker," (understandable) and strange screenshots of friends PT results where the stats don't really...umm...make sense.

Since a lot of people, myself included, read these boards to improve their poker game, it seems sharing this info might help gauge one's progress.

I will slip back into the wings and become a silent reader again...

Thanks for the input,
Ducks

Kerplunk

11-10-2004, 05:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I have 60k hands in tracker, I have played the cuttoff 30% more then upfront just because I only stay about 3 rounds on average which is a long time for some players.
Hogger

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Is it a common practice to jump around tables like this? Three rounds sounds pretty short to me. What are the benefits of moving around so much. If you find a good table, shouldn't you stick around and hammer it? Or is the idea to steal a hand or two and move on?

Ulysses

11-10-2004, 06:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How come none of you respected posters, who take on challenges (GoT, Schneids, Gonores), offer up your own Win Rates over 150k+ hands???

[/ QUOTE ]

Many have and do. Others don't care. If you can provide me a single good reason to share my winrate, I'll happily do so.

[ QUOTE ]
El Diablo, you said you might not be able to hit $1.2 million, but more like $600-$800k in ayear...does that mean your WR (assuming you hit about a million hands) is around 2-2.5B/100??

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't get a million hands in if I played poker full-time.

[ QUOTE ]
Why haven't you, Bicycle, Schneids, Astro, Peter Rus, GoT, Gonores, etc. said "yes, I beat the game for over 3BB/100 for over 100k. It's an attainable win rate." ???

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think any of those people are really worried about whether or not anyone here believes what they say about what's attainable or feel any need to defend/back up their statements w/ their own win rates as evidence? People say stuff, you decide how much weight to give it.

I beat the game for 8BB/100 over my last 400k hands. 3bb/100 is definitely attainable. There, does that make you happy?

Some of these people have shared their win rates on these forums. I would not be surprised if all of them have WRs > 3bb/100.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead, you waffle back and forth between giving someone like GoT a hard time about making 100k in 10 weeks

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never once given GoT a hard time about his ability to make any amount of money.

[ QUOTE ]
and saying "oh it's easy, just improve your game."

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it's easy. Someone said that he can't believe certain win rates. I told him that many are making those win rates and if he can't believe it, his game probably has room for a lot of improvement.

[ QUOTE ]
However there are never any BB/100 rates posted by these people

[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue. As I said, many of these people have posted winrates in this forum, HU/SH forum, and mid-high forums. There have been countless threads over the past few months where people compare their win rates. Some choose to share details, others don't.

[ QUOTE ]
Since a lot of people, myself included, read these boards to improve their poker game, it seems sharing this info might help gauge one's progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many experienced players have posted their opinions in this thread regarding what is good/possible in terms of win rates. You don't need to know their winrates to gauge your progress.

At 15/30:
1bb/100 - you're playing solid poker
2bb/100 - you're playing well, making solid value bets/raises, good laydowns
3bb/100 - you're playing very well, at or close to expert level, making thin EV plays, saving critical extra bets
4bb/100 - you're playing at expert level and probably running OK, probably also exercising good table selection

I think that's fairly accurate on a general level. Whether I claim my bb/100 to be 1, 3, 5, or 10 doesn't do anything to help you gauge your progress against the standards I just outlined.

People don't need to know other people's winrates to gauge their progress. They want to know because they are nosy.

As you may have sensed, I found your post quite irritating. Many people have contributed useful feedback here describing the level at which your game needs to be to achieve certain winrates. And your main concern is what specific individuals' winrates are. Give me a break. Please explain how knowing that helps anyone.

Final thought here. Comparing winrates w/ random individuals you don't know is a relatively worthless exercise. Focus on improving your game and you'll win what you win. It's clear that 3bb/100 is possible. Is 4bb/100 possible? Well, if your winrate is less than 2bb/100, is that really much of a concern? The idea that there's a max winrate at the game that's the same for everyone is silly. Through a combination of intelligence, experience, and ability, one is able to win a certain amount. I suspect that most people who are fixated on how many bb/100 are possible are unlikely to be the ones making the highest bb/100 in the game.

Rant over.

Richard Berg

11-10-2004, 07:02 AM

You forgot the part about Steve Case.

djcolts

11-10-2004, 09:43 AM

Thanks for all the responses. I did not mean for this thread to get personal for everyone, though - hopefully no one feels too angry or hurt or anything like that.

I moved up to 2/4 recently (I was scared of doing it at first, as I posted before), and have played about 6500 (I know, a short, short run) hands or so there, and I'm doing a little better than expected so far (not an outrageously high BB/100 rate, but a little better than expected). I'm going to play a lot more 2/4 hands to see if this is a fluke or not.

cov47

11-10-2004, 10:27 AM

I firmly believe table selection is the difference between moderate win rates and higher ones for a moderately skilled player. I've got 50k hands of 2/4 in my current Party PT database, and I'm at something like 4 BB/100. I certainly don't consider myself any sort of elite player - in part because at approximately the same number of hands at Stars I'm at about 1.25 BB/100. (Of course these sample sizes are not big enough to draw firm conclusions, spare me the lectures.) The difference between playing Saturday night at Party and playing Wednesday morning at Stars though, is, well, night and day?

Anyway my point being if somebody told me they were beating 2/4 or 3/6 at Party for 6 or 8 or even 10 BB/100, by playing mostly late night on weekends, I wouldn't be too stunned. I don't think you can beat a game where the other players are remotely competent for those kinds of rates. Luckily there are plenty of small stakes tables on Party where you can sit down and be the only decent player at the table.

cockandbull

11-10-2004, 11:52 AM

Because I didn't want to be an investment banker!

Feel free to tell me to mind my own business, but i'm quite curious as to what you do for a living.

harry

Peter_rus

11-10-2004, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"yes, I beat the game for over 3BB/100 for over 100k. It's an attainable win rate." ???

[/ QUOTE ]

I beat the game for a bit over 3BB/100 for over 200K.

First 100K were beaten near 3.75BB/100 so i'm degradate a bit /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Paul2432

11-10-2004, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm inclined to think it's more like 400k hands to get a serious, serious mark on one's win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statistics bare this out. In any group of say 100 players whose true win rate is 3 BB/100 you would expect to find about two of them winning 4 BB/100 over 100,000 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean that 2 of them would be winning 2BB/100, or does it not work that way?

Can you show the math, or point me to a link or book (preferably link)?

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

If read any basic statistics book or web-site that will give you what you need.

Yes, you would expect to find two only winning 2 BB/100.

The math is as follows:

SD (Y-hands) = SD (X-hands) x square root (Y/X)

So after 100,000 hands:

SD (100,000) = SD (100) x sqrt (1000)

If the SD/100 is 15 BB then the SD/100,000 will be 474 BB.

We can then apply this to our win rate/100 by dividing by 1000. That gives us a win rate SD of 0.474 BB.

Finally, +/- two SD gives a ~95% interval. You'll have about 2.5% of players on either extreme.

Paul

MicroBob

11-10-2004, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, have always been curious what your win rates are

[/ QUOTE ]

I, for one, actually did post my win-rate of recent.
I really was winning around 20BB/100 (at 10/20) over a stretch.

Hoo-ray for me.

Sadly, I have been unable to maintain this win-rate. Yesterday I was only break-even. Bummer.

I'm dreading the 'correction' that I'm sure the poker-gods will force upon me in the near future.

Otherwise, I don't play 15/30 so I can't comment on what is or isn't possible there. My win-rate at most levels is around 1.5-2. I don't consider myself to be a very good player but I win often enough and get enough hands in that I'm happy...yet am naturally still striving to improve.

I also find info on attainable win-rates relevent.
It's helpful for me to know that 1.5 is adequate but that I can and should be doing better. That's about all I need to know though.

I'm not the greatest player in the world, but I suspect I could get to a point where I could win 1BB/hr (1.3 or 1.4 per 100 I guess) at 15/30 and I can figure out how much this means per week, etc.
I can also figure out what I will make if I am over-estimating my talent and I'm really only good enough to win .5BB/100 at 15/30.

If/when I get my win-rate up to 1.5BB/100 at 15/30 then I continue to analyze my game and see what I might want to do to improve my win-rate.

But 1.5BB/100 at 15/30 would easily be happy territory for me.
$45/100 hds, over 200 hds an hour (3 or 4 tables)....this means over $100/hr (VERY conservatively obviously).
20 hours per week for $100k/yr isn't too shabby at all.

Ulysses

11-10-2004, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"yes, I beat the game for over 3BB/100 for over 100k. It's an attainable win rate." ???

[/ QUOTE ]

I beat the game for a bit over 3BB/100 for over 200K.

First 100K were beaten near 3.75BB/100 so i'm degradate a bit /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider what Peter's rate for his 1st 100k hands was vs. his 2nd 100k hands. I have discussed many hands w/ Peter and his game has been constantly improving. Given those facts, Peter's numbers illustrate very well the large variance in winrate easily possible over 100k hands.

Blarg

11-10-2004, 03:36 PM

It's scary to extrapolate that to a much crappier player like myself. I'm thinking of Peter's variations as applied to me as making the difference not between 3.75 and 2.0 BB/100, but 1.75 and zero BB/100, for 100,000 hands.

CrackerZack

11-10-2004, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why haven't you, Bicycle, Schneids, Astro, Peter Rus, GoT, Gonores, etc. said "yes, I beat the game for over 3BB/100 for over 100k. It's an attainable win rate." ???

[/ QUOTE ]

One of these things, is not like the other. One of these things does not belong.

You could ask all of these people, and at least one of them would post your a screenshot of cashouts from various sites.

I hate these discussion. I'm with Diablo. Dumb sh*t like this is why every time I come back for a bit, I get turned off and leave again. That and I'm a whiny b*tch.

Equal

11-10-2004, 10:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of words with so little substance. Show me 6-7bb/100 at 2/4 then tough guy. Everybody has a friend who does such and such, or knows somebody who... well you get my point. Either way, the two statements I made were true, so unless you are prepared to counter with something concrete, why even do it? I'm not trolling, merely pointing out that you are full of [censored]. It probably just seems like trolling becuase it happens so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I don't have 400k hands at 2/4 to support my assertion. I doubt anyone who made 5-6bb/100 at 2/4 stayed at that level for very long.

However the play at 2/4 is so god awful that I would bet money there is at least a dozen players here would could beat the 2/4 Party for 5-6bb/100.

I am also sure that there is a regular poster here that beat the Party 2/4 for over 5bb/100 for over 60k hands. So that makes your "true" statment incorrect. Hopefully they will chime in here.

While you are right that my stats don't reach the levels I posted that were possible, it doesn't mean that they are unattainable.

Losing all

11-11-2004, 05:36 AM

I agree 100% with your view that living life is more important than money, and that playing 40+ hours a week of internet poker is a drag.

That being said, and without knowing anything about your salary or love for your current job, I think you're a fool to pass up on a mil plus over the next 2 years because it's boring. You could live life anyway you deemed fit after that. up to and including full retirement.

6471849653

11-11-2004, 12:52 PM

One big bet per 100 for a TOP player at 33% tight full ring limit holdem games. 30% might be tough, up to no different from 20%. 40% is perhaps the best, two big bets per 100. 50-60%, one big bet per 100. 60%+, zero big bets per 100. After the rake. Fluctuations are absolutely sick until playing heads up. Big bet poker is far better; the edges being too marginal at limit games - casino invention, tailored for the fish, so they play it naturally next to perfectly, and this includes heads up play too, but there's so much action that one can beat it in case there's no rake.

adamstewart

11-11-2004, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One big bet per 100 for a TOP player at 33% tight full ring limit holdem games. 30% might be tough, up to no different from 20%. 40% is perhaps the best, two big bets per 100. 50-60%, one big bet per 100. 60%+, zero big bets per 100. After the rake. Fluctuations are absolutely sick until playing heads up. Big bet poker is far better; the edges being too marginal at limit games - casino invention, tailored for the fish, so they play it naturally next to perfectly, and this includes heads up play too, but there's so much action that one can beat it in case there's no rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, but have you thought of this:

40% of rake equals 35% of no one seeing the flop. If every always raises the turn, though, 50% of the time you'll win. That being said, if 22% of the turns are check-raised, then 30% didn't see the flop that those times. Rake included.

Adam

BusterStacks

11-11-2004, 03:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of words with so little substance. Show me 6-7bb/100 at 2/4 then tough guy. Everybody has a friend who does such and such, or knows somebody who... well you get my point. Either way, the two statements I made were true, so unless you are prepared to counter with something concrete, why even do it? I'm not trolling, merely pointing out that you are full of [censored]. It probably just seems like trolling becuase it happens so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I don't have 400k hands at 2/4 to support my assertion. I doubt anyone who made 5-6bb/100 at 2/4 stayed at that level for very long.

However the play at 2/4 is so god awful that I would bet money there is at least a dozen players here would could beat the 2/4 Party for 5-6bb/100.

I am also sure that there is a regular poster here that beat the Party 2/4 for over 5bb/100 for over 60k hands. So that makes your "true" statment incorrect. Hopefully they will chime in here.

While you are right that my stats don't reach the levels I posted that were possible, it doesn't mean that they are unattainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah... ok so now it's NOT 6-7bb/100... just checking...cuz you sure changed your tone on that one, I hoped you learned a valuable lesson.

zombies kill

11-12-2004, 09:16 PM

i am 6' 4''.....

8 BB/HR..... POOF!

Equal

11-12-2004, 10:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lots of words with so little substance. Show me 6-7bb/100 at 2/4 then tough guy. Everybody has a friend who does such and such, or knows somebody who... well you get my point. Either way, the two statements I made were true, so unless you are prepared to counter with something concrete, why even do it? I'm not trolling, merely pointing out that you are full of [censored]. It probably just seems like trolling becuase it happens so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I don't have 400k hands at 2/4 to support my assertion. I doubt anyone who made 5-6bb/100 at 2/4 stayed at that level for very long.

However the play at 2/4 is so god awful that I would bet money there is at least a dozen players here would could beat the 2/4 Party for 5-6bb/100.

I am also sure that there is a regular poster here that beat the Party 2/4 for over 5bb/100 for over 60k hands. So that makes your "true" statment incorrect. Hopefully they will chime in here.

While you are right that my stats don't reach the levels I posted that were possible, it doesn't mean that they are unattainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah... ok so now it's NOT 6-7bb/100... just checking...cuz you sure changed your tone on that one, I hoped you learned a valuable lesson.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you ACTUALLY READ MY ORIGINAL POST I did say 5-6bb/100 at 2/4, you were the one changing what I said to further your argument.

I guess I did learn a valuable lesson - take anything you say with a grain of salt.

Thank you for revealing your true self to everyone here.

PhatPots

11-13-2004, 01:59 AM

Well I play .5/1 and I earn like 5.5BB/100, 3BB is very attainable at the lower limits, I read a bunch of the first few replies and I don't think you guys consider the lower limits. I have heard some ppl earn 8BB/100 at .5/1

mosta

11-13-2004, 03:00 AM

I take pretty much the opposite view as to discussing winrates (except with a big qualification). If you were at baseball camp and wanted to study pitching, would it be "nosey" to ask how fast different people's fastballs are? or batting averages for batting? if you went for lessons at a chess club, would you not care whether you were talking to a 2200 or a 1700? Tennis lessons--from a 5.0 or a 3.0? do you care? it's a rare treat when one gets to have an objective and reliable measure of performance. and it's unfortunate that by coincidence in this activity performance equals income (with all its attendant baggage (which rather oddly still carries over to an anonymous forum)). Now my qualfication is that the flaw with making win rates a topic of conversation on this forum is that most people will spend most of their time lying or accusing other people of lying.

tilting

11-13-2004, 09:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I take pretty much the opposite view as to discussing winrates (except with a big qualification). If you were at baseball camp and wanted to study pitching, would it be "nosey" to ask how fast different people's fastballs are? or batting averages for batting? if you went for lessons at a chess club, would you not care whether you were talking to a 2200 or a 1700? Tennis lessons--from a 5.0 or a 3.0? do you care? it's a rare treat when one gets to have an objective and reliable measure of performance. and it's unfortunate that by coincidence in this activity performance equals income (with all its attendant baggage (which rather oddly still carries over to an anonymous forum)). Now my qualfication is that the flaw with making win rates a topic of conversation on this forum is that most people will spend most of their time lying or accusing other people of lying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad someone finally pointed out the reason why this whole topic is so relevant.

adamstewart

11-13-2004, 04:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well I play .5/1 and I earn like 5.5BB/100, 3BB is very attainable at the lower limits, I read a bunch of the first few replies and I don't think you guys consider the lower limits. I have heard some ppl earn 8BB/100 at .5/1

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting....

How many hands have you played thus far?

MicroBob

11-13-2004, 06:22 PM

I think this is a very good point.

Although I would nit-pick that getting hitting tips from someone with a higher batting average is a bit more relevant than getting pitching tips from someone who can throw harder.

Also....in the phyical sports (and even in something like chess) actual success does not necessarily reflect teaching ability.

A 2200 chess player who talks over my head or just isn't a good teacher does not help me as much as a 1700 player who gives solid advice that I can understand.

Same for baseball where some of the better hitting/pitching coaches or managers were kind of lousy as players....and some hall-of-fame players just aren't that good as coaches.

But your general point is correct....and in poker, the advice you give on a given hand (or how YOU would play it) should more directly relate to win-rate (then coaching in other sports).

But the bigger problem is lying/BS'ing. There are quite a few posters on here whom I would absolutely believe 100% if they told me what their win-rate were....but obviously there are quite a few where you would wonder if they are truthful or not.

Also - those who win are more likely to report than those who are going through bad stretches.
Someone winning 7BB/hr on a hot streak is more likely to mention it here than someone on an equivilent -7BB/hr losing streak.

This will distort one's view of what is common among 2+2'ers and what is a reasonable goal to shoot for.

helpmeout

11-13-2004, 08:41 PM

I agree that 5-6bb/100 is probably attainable at $2/$4.

Maybe 5 for 50c/$1 because the rake is pretty high.

These high amounts would assume the player uses very good table selection and probably plays 1-2 tables.

I think someone 4 tabling should probably take off 2bb/100.

You cant prove it over a large sample though because no one is going to stick around that long.

Blarg

11-14-2004, 03:19 AM

I find the 5 and over BB/100 figures hard to believe over sustained periods.

Kenrick

11-14-2004, 07:55 AM

I think a lot of the eyebrow-raising stats are from people who haven't played all that many hours. I won 150bb tonight, but that isn't a common occurrence. Take away my 5000 hands awhile back where I lost 300bb and my stats would look like Superman's. But I had that run where the sky was falling, and so they fit more within the realm of normality. I'm not saying that some higher power can't achieve lofty goals, but, overall, high bb/hour stats seem to be inflated. If you haven't played at least 100k hands, your next 5k hands might readjust your stats as well as your attitude.

Baulucky

11-14-2004, 08:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And when it comes to making money, there are a lot more interesting and fulfilling ways to do it than playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be very nice if this were true. Would you care to point out one or two examples of these "lot more interesting and fulfilling ways to do it than playing online poker"?, especially in the upper income generating bracket you allude to, and accesible to mere mortals like, ahem, ME?:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure I could make at least $600k to $800k playing online poker full-time.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I'm pretty sure I could get pregnant if I were a woman".
"Im pretty sure I could climb Everest if I decided to".
"Im pretty sure I could run 100m in 9.7 secs flat IF I decided to".

These are all PERFORMANCE measured activities. You CAN NEVER KNOW if you could, till AFTER you've done it.

[ QUOTE ]
Many others fall into that category.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is FALSE as FALSE can be. Less than 0.1% of the poker playing population CAN do this. "A few others that I know and can count with the fingers in one hand can do this", would be closer to reality.

You know Diablo, I've always been pricking up on you, mainly because I've learned a lot reading your posts/hands/etc ( and YES, plain old ENVY). But now I'm more inclined to believe that you are, a little, too full of yourself. (And no, I can't beat your game, or any game for that matter, judging by by most recent results...).

For me, getting money has always been a difficult issue. And I'm starting to believe now, that it always will be, unless I happen to find a suitcase with 20,000 photos of Ben Franklin, at which point it will cease to be an issue for me, and then I will consider poker (and any other money making activities) as entertainment.

Right now I'm not sure if I hate you because you can win a lot more than I can, or despise you because you won't do it.

While I figure out the above feelings, and in any case, you seem to be living a better life than mine, and I respect you for it.

I'm done now. Back to grinding 2-4.