Win rate stated in terms of Buy-ins/100 vs. bb/100

[O Doyle Rules]

I am a noob at this NL stuff and this might have been discussed before, but would'nt it make more sense to state one's win rate in terms of buy-ins won per 100 hands than big bets?

Big bets in NL poker does not seem material to me in discussing your win rate.

For example, instead of saying I win 12.5 bb/100 at the
$ 50 buy-in level, one would state their win rate to be .25 buy-in/100.

I know this is splitting hairs, but it just seems more logical to me.

[Ghazban]

You will find this doesn't work if you ever play in an uncapped buyin game. Buyins are also not standard across all online sites for a given blind level.

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
You will find this doesn't work if you ever play in an uncapped buyin game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I understand. (However, I don't think I will be playing in any uncapped buyin games in the near future, not unless I know I am the favorite and I can bring the most money to the table.)

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
Buyins are also not standard across all online sites for a given blind level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something here or does'nt this make the arguement why one's win rate should be stated in terms of buy-ins since blind structures and buyins are not consistent?

Lets say there are two different games, both with $ 50 buy-ins, one has blinds of .25/.50 and the other .50/1.00. Going back to my original premise I would be a 12.5bb/100 in the first game, but only a 6.25 bb/100 winner in the second game. Would'nt it be more descriptive to say I am a .25 buy-in/100 winner in both games?

[Ghazban]

The size of the pots in big bet games (NL and PL) are determined by the starting blinds, therefore win rates ought to be posted in terms of the blinds (standard is the big blind). However, pokertracker was developed primarily for limit play so it uses big bets (2x the big blind). Due to most people's usage of this program, win rates are often quoted direct from how they appear on the screen within the application.

I don't understand why you feel that stating winrates in terms of the buyin would be useful. A person playing 1/2 with a $200 buyin (at the MGM in Vegas for example) probably isn't making 2/3rds what he would make in the $300 capped 1/2 games in Atlantic City. His win rate between the two games ought to be about the same in $/100 (or BB/100).

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
The size of the pots in big bet games (NL and PL) are determined by the starting blinds, therefore win rates ought to be posted in terms of the blinds (standard is the big blind). However, pokertracker was developed primarily for limit play so it uses big bets (2x the big blind). Due to most people's usage of this program, win rates are often quoted direct from how they appear on the screen within the application.

I don't understand why you feel that stating winrates in terms of the buyin would be useful. A person playing 1/2 with a $200 buyin (at the MGM in Vegas for example) probably isn't making 2/3rds what he would make in the $300 capped 1/2 games in Atlantic City. His win rate between the two games ought to be about the same in $/100 (or BB/100).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Ghazban,

Thanks for discussing this with me. Don't me to debate this at all with you, I now understand why at least win rates are being stated in big bets. ( because of how pokertracker treats it)

However, it still would make more sense to me if win rates would either be stated in either buyins or big blinds.

I thought the average size of pots in NL holdem was more determined by the player's stack sizes or buyins. I can see in PL where the blinds moreso determine the size of pots. I guess why I think stating win rates in buyins is foremost is because I thought player's stack size (buyins) is the most important factor in big bet poker, not the blinds.

[NickPoker]

I like to track my win rate by hourly play. If you play ring and tourny, it helps cooerlate which is a better use of your time.