Should I be happy with 1.5 bb/100 at $5/10 Party game?

[dantheman_05]

25k hands so far, vpip 22.. pfr 13..wwsf 40...wtsd 35...w$Sd 48

i know 50k hands is usually at least the standard, but talking from an overall perspective....once i have 50k hands, lets say im still at 1.5 bb/100, should i be content with that, or should i be at 2bb /100 or higher? i play 4 tables and use gametime. i am shooting for 2bb/100, but i dont know how realistic that is. my pfr is so high because i steal the blinds alot, 60%..fold bb to steal 55, vpip from sb 35

[DMBFan23]

why would you ever stop working on your game?

[Paxosmotic]

You can either go out to 8 tables or up to 2bb/100. I think up to 2bb/100 is better for your long term play. Squeeze an extra .5 out of it, you'll be a MUCH better player for it.

[dantheman_05]

i wont stop working on my game. i just dont know what a realistic expectation is at that limit. i am kinda beating myself up for not being at 2bb

[DMBFan23]

eh, sample size.

plus, if you're not there and you're already winning player, you'll probably get there. be sure to enjoy the ride.

[Webster]

Satisified - yes - happy - maybe - still room for improvement but I expect 2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.

2BB/100 is very doable

Grinderswarehouse - NOT just another BLOG (http://www.grinderswarehouse.com)

[HajiShirazu]

I think that's a solid winrate in what most people say is a tight game. At any rate I think moving up, or trying out 6 max play would be more of a benefit to you than trying to squeek out another .5 bb in the 5/10 fulls.

[flair1239]

With good table selection I believe that 2-2.5 BB/100 is very attainable for an excellent player. I would guess an expert type might be able to do better.

That said, although there are usually a few excellent games around and several good ones. I think it might be tough to maintain that rate 8-tabling over a long stretch of hands.

I imagine a bunch of people are probably doing it... but again if they can 8-table 5/10 at 2BB/100 over the period of time needed to "prove" the WR with any degree of confidence.... then they are probably costing themselves money.

But to answer your original question. If somebody tells me they aqre maintaining a long term 1.5BB/100 at 5/10. I would make sure that I read their strategy posts and thought about what they wrote. In other words... good job.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
25k hands so far, vpip 22.. pfr 13..wwsf 40...wtsd 35...w$Sd 48

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you drop the WTSD a couple percentage points and thus raise the W$SD a couple points, that'll go a long way towards adding that extra .5bb/100. Taking a stab in the dark, I'd say this involves letting go of AK/AQ UI a little more often. Standard disclaimers about sample size aside.

OTOH, I don't 4-table, so maybe those numbers are more on par with what's expected when playing that many games at once.

[AdamL]

This is an interesting thread, because I've been telling a buddy of mine to be happy with where he's at right now and to work on volume of play.

I think you make more money once you are at the point of "squeezing" by just playing more tables and working on hours. But at the same time, getting an extra fraction of a BB can do great things for your game.

So here's my question:

What kind of things would we be improving at this stage? What modifications to your play would be taking place to go from 1.5bb/100 at a fairly solid game (5/10) to 2bb/100...

[dantheman_05]

i have plaed 20k hands of 2/4 shorthanded in order to improve my game before i played the 25k of 5/10 by the way. i think that is the only reason why i am above 1bb/100 in this tighter game. im not quite sure how to play certain groups of hands like small pairs adn Axs because i do not have a large enough database to know how well or bad these hands are performing for me yet. also for some reason AA has been running very bad for me..only 70% winrate with it which is very odd. its hard for me to see how 2.5bb is possible at this level while playing 4 tables though. one other thing, i beleive a player on 4 tables must use gametime (and know how to apply the info). i couldnt be at 1.5 without it.

[ QUOTE ]
im not quite sure how to play certain groups of hands like small pairs adn Axs because i do not have a large enough database to know how well or bad these hands are performing for me yet. also for some reason AA has been running very bad for me..only 70% winrate with it which is very odd. its hard for me to see how 2.5bb is possible at this level while playing 4 tables though. one other thing, i beleive a player on 4 tables must use gametime (and know how to apply the info). i couldnt be at 1.5 without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be concerned with how the hands perform "overall" since there's really no such thing. Worry about how to play each hand correctly in the context of the situation.

If you say the game is tight, then suited Ace littles lose their value, unless you're in a steal situation. Middle pairs should be played aggressively pre-flop to limit the field.

Also, are you observing the texture of the flop/board and taking the proper line given said texture? This is especially important when deciding how to play an unimproved AK, AQs post-flop.

Are you paying off too many turn raises and then paying off a river bet with a naked top pair? Are you checking cards with outs and betting cards with no outs? (I know that axiom is simplified, but it's an important fundamental.)

Are you taking free-cards with marginal draws? Are you pushing your semi-bluffs too far against opponents you know will call you down? Are you semi-bluffing at playing zone boards, ex. 89 on JTx board. This type of board will touch a lot of hands and the success of semi-bluff is minimal.

Are you taking the free showdown in position enough with marginal hands that could, but might not be best?

How do you play top pair, weak kicker from the blinds? And depending on the texture of the board and your opponents, sometimes it's better to lead and other times it's better to check and evaluate the action, and then make a decision. I think this is an underrated concept.

Do you attempt enough turn steals after the flop has been checked through?

Hey, 1.5 BB is pretty solid. Just keep learning. If you haven't read Middle Limit Poker by Ciaffone, it'd help you tremendously in these type of games.

[LImitPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
2BB/100 is very doable

[/ QUOTE ]

You are contradicting yourself

[Moss Factor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
2BB/100 is very doable

[/ QUOTE ]

You are contradicting yourself

[/ QUOTE ]Incorrect. Someone who studies the game and is actually aware of a) what a winrate is, b) things they can do to improve their winrate, and c) is actively doing these things makes 2BB/100 doable if you put in the time.

Just because that poster thinks that only 5% of all players do this doesn't mean that its not something which is not necessarily extrodinarily difficult to attain.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
2BB/100 is very doable

[/ QUOTE ]

You are contradicting yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. In fact, he specifically stated that it 1 in 20 people do it, which sounds very doable to me.

[dantheman_05]

if any of you would like to contribute something helpful to this thread besides arguing i would appreciate it

[LImitPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. In fact, he specifically stated that it 1 in 20 people do it, which sounds very doable to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that having a 95% failure rate makes something very doable?

What would you consider hard?

I don't agree with his statemet [ QUOTE ]
2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.



[/ QUOTE ]

I was just pointing out that a 95% failure rates doesnt seem very doable to me

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. In fact, he specifically stated that it 1 in 20 people do it, which sounds very doable to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that having a 95% failure rate makes something very doable?

What would you consider hard?

I don't agree with his statemet [ QUOTE ]
2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.



[/ QUOTE ]

I was just pointing out that a 95% failure rates doesnt seem very doable to me

[/ QUOTE ]

It's widely recognized that only 10% (or fewer) of all poker players are winners. Yet it's also widely recognized (around 2+2 anyway) that it's incredibly easy to beat the low-limit games. These are not contradictory statements.

[sthief09]

at 25k ahnds you ahve absolutely no way of knowing your winrate or even a reasonable estimate of it. worrying about .5 is a waste of time. it's not like yoru range is 1.2-1.8. it's more like -.5 to +3.5. so you can be upset that you're not a 4 bb/100 winner, but worrying that after 25k hands you're only at 1.5 is really dumb. at 20k hands at 5/10 full I'm at like .7 bb/100, and in all other games combined, which si mostly 5/10 6m to 30/60 I'm around 3. does that mean I just suck at 5/10 full?

[goodguy_1]

[ QUOTE ]
With good table selection I believe that 2-2.5 BB/100 is very attainable for an excellent player. I would guess an expert type might be able to do better.

That said, although there are usually a few excellent games around and several good ones. I think it might be tough to maintain that rate 8-tabling over a long stretch of hands.

I imagine a bunch of people are probably doing it... but again if they can 8-table 5/10 at 2BB/100 over the period of time needed to "prove" the WR with any degree of confidence.... then they are probably costing themselves money.


[/ QUOTE ] I doubt there are a "bunch" of players 8-tabling $5-10 Full for more than anything resembling 2.00-2.50 bb/100. Those that are 8 tabling the best have a lower bb/100 or are moving up to $10-20 or $15-30. There are rarely 8 let alone 6 usally only 4 "good" Party $5-10 Full games going on off peak nites. I know I play this game everyday. There are very good games at Paradise and Stars has had some great games of late. I just think the idea that a bunch of guys are 8-tabling the $5-10 Full for those winrates isnt a reality. Now 4-tabling sure 2.00-2.50 is very doable for the best players at $5-10 Full. $5-10 Full is a wasteland for rakeback players..must regualrs play somewhat well..the games are usually tight and too just assume that since you see a 17/9/2.50 that you cant outplay him/her is not a reality. $5-10 full is great because you can make 7-7 1/2cents in rakeback almost 50% more than $3-6 Full abit more than $3-6 6MAX and only a liitle bit less than $5-10 6MAX(ie 7cents vs 8cents).

I was doing 2.25bb/100
for my first 10K than ran horrific broke even over 6K hands and now I'm back at grinding these games. IMHO if you are 4tabling 2.00bb/100 is doable with very good game selection and that means playing other sites specifically PokerStars. 8tabling 1.00-1.50 bb/100 -reads are just too important at $5-10 Full..Most pots are heads-up onnthe turn and you need to tuned into your opponent. ABC does not work at $5-10 8tabling like it does at $3-6 .This is the first limit on the way up to higher games where you need to start paying attention..ABC doesnt cut it.

1.50 bb/100 is commendable multi-tabling but I think if you spread your wings a bit and scan other sites 2.00+ is doable..in other words nice job. I'm right there with you.
I cant wait to move up over $5-10. I think both of us should take shots at "good" $10-20 and $15-30 games many of these games yes have higher variance but offer better action than typical $5-10 game.

[MaxPower]

Yes, you should be happy. The first 25K hands I played in that game I was a net loser.

Rather than shoot for some arbitrary number, why don't you strive to constantly learn about poker and improve your play.

[LImitPlayer]

How can you say that those statements do not contradict each other?

If his 5% number is 100% correct or 100% wrong it does not change ther fact that those are confilcting statements.

Can you explain to me how it is "very doable" if only 5% of the people who play can beat it for that winrate?

That means 95 out 100 people fail to achieve that winrate.
How is that very doable?

What would make it very undoable?

Woulddn't the % be higher like 40-50% or so if it was very doable?

If 5% makes something very doable then what makes it hard?

[ QUOTE ]
It's widely recognized that only 10% (or fewer) of all poker players are winners. Yet it's also widely recognized (around 2+2 anyway) that it's incredibly easy to beat the low-limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats like saying take the top 20 poker players of all time or the top 20 "inserrt any game or sport you wish" players of all time giving them their own internet forum and let them talk about how easy it is to do such and such in their given sport or game.

Sure it's easy for them bout what about the other 2 billion people that attempt it?

There is a whole other world outside of 2 + 2]

[ QUOTE ]
Satisified - yes - happy - maybe - still room for improvement but I expect 2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.

2BB/100 is very doable


[/ QUOTE ]

The last time i checked being in the top 5% of ALL players is not a very doable thing in any sport or game regardless if it is poker or not.

Take the top 5% off all baseball, football, golf soccer, and chess players. Is achieving the skill they have in their sport or game "very doable?" Somehow I doubt it.

My point was not to debate what the needed winrate is to rank in the the top 5% of players but was to point out those to statemnets are conflicting.

[mikeyvegas]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain to me how it is "very doable" if only 5% of the people who play can beat it for that winrate?

That means 95 out 100 people fail to achieve that winrate.
How is that very doable?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the vast majority of people playing poker these days have not invested any time outside of a poker room (or on a poker site) to work on their game. This puts them at a great disadvatage to those that do take the time to learn the game.

[LImitPlayer]

So does that mean that If I put in the time and effort I can rank in the top 5% of all the basketball players in the world?

I wonder why so many people try and failto make the NBA if all they have to do is study and practice the game.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
So does that mean that If I put in the time and effort I can rank in the top 5% of all the basketball players in the world?

I wonder why so many people try and failto make the NBA if all they have to do is study and practice the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does making bad analogies make you feel intelligent?

[meep_42]

Do you really think the NBA is the top 5% of players?

I think it may be the top .5% of NCAA Div-I players over the past 10 years.

-d

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you say that those statements do not contradict each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a tempest in a teapot!

The post you're criticizing had an audience of one...a 2+2er who's already at 1.5. So the statement, as communicated to its intended recipient, is accurate. Addressed to a general audience, it would be contradictory.

Even addressed to the regular 2+2 community in general, the statement would not be entirely unreasonable, given that this community as a whole (excluding idiots like myself) is made up of higher-percentile players.

[elindauer]

Hi sthief,

While I agree with all your conclussions about the poster's concerns coming across as misguided, I'll point out that this statement:

[ QUOTE ]
at 25k ahnds you ahve absolutely no way of knowing your winrate or even a reasonable estimate of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

is quite far off. I suspect if pressed you would concede this, but if you really believe this, you are not being creative enough in your attempts to find this number.

- the confidence interval mechanism gives you a range which, while wide compared to the poster's concern over 1/2 a BB, is certainly better than "absolutely no way of knowing"
- you could compare your play to that of a much more experienced player, having him tell you where he would have played differently and estimating the impact on your winrate. I'd say you could use this method to come up with a very close guess at your winrate after perhaps as few as a few hundred hands (not to mention that you'd get better for having done it)
- you could look at other stats, like how often you are being dealt premium cards, how often your hands are holding up, etc and compare them to generally accepted numbers to get a feel for how well / poorly you are running.

etc.

Good luck.
Eric

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
So does that mean that If I put in the time and effort I can rank in the top 5% of all the basketball players in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm 6', and a decent player, but the more I think about it, I may already be in the top 5%.

[ QUOTE ]


I wonder why so many people try and failto make the NBA if all they have to do is study and practice the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, there are only about 500 players in the NBA. With a world population of over 6,000,000,000, you need to be a lot better than top 5% to make the NBA...

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you say that those statements do not contradict each other?

If his 5% number is 100% correct or 100% wrong it does not change ther fact that those are confilcting statements.

Can you explain to me how it is "very doable" if only 5% of the people who play can beat it for that winrate?

That means 95 out 100 people fail to achieve that winrate.
How is that very doable?

What would make it very undoable?

Woulddn't the % be higher like 40-50% or so if it was very doable?

If 5% makes something very doable then what makes it hard?

[ QUOTE ]
It's widely recognized that only 10% (or fewer) of all poker players are winners. Yet it's also widely recognized (around 2+2 anyway) that it's incredibly easy to beat the low-limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats like saying take the top 20 poker players of all time or the top 20 "inserrt any game or sport you wish" players of all time giving them their own internet forum and let them talk about how easy it is to do such and such in their given sport or game.

Sure it's easy for them bout what about the other 2 billion people that attempt it?

There is a whole other world outside of 2 + 2]

[ QUOTE ]
Satisified - yes - happy - maybe - still room for improvement but I expect 2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.

2BB/100 is very doable


[/ QUOTE ]

The last time i checked being in the top 5% of ALL players is not a very doable thing in any sport or game regardless if it is poker or not.

Take the top 5% off all baseball, football, golf soccer, and chess players. Is achieving the skill they have in their sport or game "very doable?" Somehow I doubt it.

My point was not to debate what the needed winrate is to rank in the the top 5% of players but was to point out those to statemnets are conflicting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is my first statement (only 10% of poker players are winners) correct? Hint: Go look at Jackpot Jay's last column from espn.com. He cites 2 separate sources from 2 separate online rooms who say they have 8% and 7% winners during the year)

Is my second statement (it's very easy to beat the low-limit games) correct? This one is more subjective, but a few years ago, Clark came up with a very short "cheat-sheet" of instructions for his g/f, and I bet if they were followed exactly, they would produce a winning player at the low limits. So since almost everyone can follow written directions, it stands to reason that almost anyone can become a winner.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
Is my second statement (it's very easy to beat the low-limit games) correct? This one is more subjective, but a few years ago, Clark came up with a very short "cheat-sheet" of instructions for his g/f, and I bet if they were followed exactly, they would produce a winning player at the low limits. So since almost everyone can follow written directions, it stands to reason that almost anyone can become a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

In one of the "Poker Essays" books, Mason makes the statement (Paraphrased): "It is simple to beat the game, play at the lowest limit while playing tight...."

He is not endorsing doing this but pointing out that it will be more satisfying and rewarding to continue learning.