With Perfect Play, how much can 5/10 SH at Party be beaten?

[Grisgra]

I'm a 2BB/100 player over ~65k hands. And I suck. Sometimes I miss value bets, sometimes I call down when I KNOW I'm beaten, I get into LAGgy raising wars when I'm on a draw where in retrospect it's obvious the other guy has top pair and ain't letting go . . . not often, but often enough to lose $$.

Hell, I'd say that at least once, if not twice, every 100 hands there's a moment when I'm slapping myself in the forehead for being a chip-spewing doofus.

So I figure I'm costing myself at least 2BB/100 by imperfect play. And let's face it, I'm probably making mistakes that I don't even know about. So there's probably another BB/100 in there.

Meaning I've come to the conclusion that with good table selection (avoid the aggressives, hunt down the passive fishies), PT data-mining, and perfect play, one should be able to beat the 5/10 tables for 4-5BB/100.

Either that, or

1) My mistakes aren't as costly as I think (unlikely -- sometimes I stumble into $$ but not as often as I lose $$ because of them)
2) I've been running well this 65k hands, and have only made 2BB/100 because of that. Meaning at this point I'm dooooooomed. (I hope, unlikely.)

What do y'all think? (And please, just quoting higher authority saying that such a win rate Is Impossible isn't going to cut it!)

It sounds ridiculous, I know, 4-5BB/100, but I can't ignore the fact that I'm 2BB/100 right now over a very long stretch and I'm hardly a super-strong player.

[Jurollo]

I am at around 2BB/100 and make the same mistakes you do, hopefully with some more table time those mistakes will become fewer in number.
~Justin

[naphand]

The answer is highly dependent on how many tables you play. Ulysses has proposed that 3BB/100 4-tabling is the max. Playing two tables and with good reads then I think 3-4 is possible. You need to define how many tables people are playing.

[joker122]

The play at 5/10 6m is just atrocious. If someone like schneids or el diablo can make close to 3BB/100 at 10/20, which, IMO, is much more difficult, than I don't see why they couldn't beat 5/10 for ~4BB/100

[Scotch78]

Do you know how he arrived at that number, or remember the title of the thread so I can search it out?

Scott

[naphand]

No. Probably in the archives now. He may even have been talking about $10/20, my brain is fried right now.

[Tosh]

I'm sure if you do some serious data mining, you can get info to get you upto 4BB.

[Gazza]

I make all the same mistakes as you Grisgra and I have a win rate at 10-20 (mainly) of 4.5BB/100 over 55K hands.
The sky is the limit for the perfect player!

Gazza

[Jeff W]

This might be what you're looking for. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=headsup&Number=1078549&fpa rt=1&PHPSESSID=)

[Grisgra]

Excellent point . . . damn, I thought I was covering all the bases, too.

Thinking one or two tables (I don't think that two is going to be so much different from one). I'm generally playing two, and have little problem keeping up (though there might be 0.5BB/100 somewhere in there). Three and things start to break down, but I can't get all the screens side-by-side on my crappy laptop.

[Grisgra]

On the one hand, I'm happy (and a bit surprised) to find people telling me that I'm not insane, that 5BB/100 isn't an outrageously stupid possibility.

On the other, it confirms that I've got a lot to learn, and that's always a little depressing, given the number of hands you have to play to confirm that you're playing better than before /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Here's to the next 65k hands!

[Tosh]

The amount of hands to play is proof more for others, you will know when you improve (which hopefully is constantly). I don't stay at one limit enough to get statistically significant stats that often but I always feel a better player each day. Even if its only a small difference its a difference that is >0 and that feels great.

[stripsqueez]

i think the best 6 max players on party could 4 table the 5/10 game and go around at 5BB's/100

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

i think the best 6 max players on party could 4 table the 5/10 game and go around at 5BB's/100


[/ QUOTE ]

But who gets out of bed for $200 an hour?

Crikey that would be a good rate.

One day...

Guy.

[Dark Force Rising]

IMO the thing that puts a ceiling on things is compromise. Check that unimproved AK on the flop and save $ now but risk people taking shots at you later. There are some bets we don't like to make but must because the opponents don't always behave the way we would like them to.

The perfect balance. Hopefully I'll experience it for five minutes before I die.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the thing that puts a ceiling on things is compromise. Check that unimproved AK on the flop and save $ now but risk people taking shots at you later. There are some bets we don't like to make but must because the opponents don't always behave the way we would like them to.

The perfect balance. Hopefully I'll experience it for five minutes before I die.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good example of this:

I get seated at Canterbury in the CO and post there, get dealt AQo... a couple limpers I raise... Bet flop, get two callers, bet turn when I pick up gutshot get one caller in the BB, miss on river I check it through and beat his unimproved Q9 (which also happened to pick up a gutshot on the king turn).

One rotation later a couple limpers to me on the button I have KQo and raise, bet flop of 743 two diamonds get two callers, bet turn of 3 get two callers, river 8 check to me I bet because SB and UTG (the bad playing, always chasing player from BB in the previous hand) are the two players in and I have this itching suspicion at least one of them has ace high (probably with the diamond flush draw) and by having set a prior precedence of checking the river with missed overcards I think my bet will get a few better hands to fold, and certainly often enough to justify taking a stab in this 10-12BBish pot. SB thinks for a few seconds and folds, UTG thinks for a few seconds, looks at his cards, shakes his head, and folds.

I think this river bet in the second hand is much easier to make after you've checked a prior river with high cards.

[naphand]

Absolutely. Faced just exactly this situation against a LAG yesterday, who would normally take the initiative and be very reluctant to fold. Once I raised the flop he went into call-down, but folded the River (I had AQ, I am pretty sure he had AK from the PF action). I could not have done this without having a prior "record" of checking unimproved on the River.

Of course, if you do get called and lose, you need to be value-betting them to death, as they certainly call you down with A-high or any part of the board for quite a few hands.

[kiddo]

It would mean u could win 7-8BB only playing one table because of perfect reads and better focus. I doubt it.

But anyway, if u are this good u are also good enough to understand that u make more money at higher limits so this player cant be found at 5/10. Ray Cooke - his book makes me think he is good at limit holdem - is not grinding at low limit so we will never know what an expert can win.

[FishyWhale]

Anyone know how much +14big bets/hour for three tables is in terms of bb/100?

[Scotch78]

unsustainable

Scott

[Grisgra]

At about 90 hands/hr, that's about 5BB/100. So with perfect play, some here are saying that it *is* sustainable, though at three tables . . . probably not.

(And if you have to ask the question about what BB/100 that is, then you're obviously not the one earning it /images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

[Scotch78]

What's "BB/100" mean?

Scott

[Jeff W]

You're thinking discretely. Think continuously. Your opponent has a continuum of hands, not a discrete hand.

A missed value bet with the nuts on the river is a large mistake, but it is not a -1.0 BB mistake. Most mistakes that seem to cost you 1 or more BBs are actually much smaller. Poker is a game of small edges compounded over time.

[FishyWhale]

(And if you have to ask the question about what BB/100 that is, then you're obviously not the one earning it ).

Then my records lie, I guess.

No seriously, I still calculate my results in terms of big bets/hour (which is bb/h). BB always has been the Big Blind, so I wondered (and still do), whether "BB/100" also stands for "big bet" (in that case it should be "bb/100") or "Big Blind".

[FishyWhale]

I had 41 winning sessions vs 6 losing sessions over 143+something hours played.

[wheelz]

It means big bets.

[Vaftrudner]

When I played 5-10, I had that number for about 10k hands or so. To bad the run ended. /images/graemlins/grin.gif