Why not Big Bets won per 100 hands?

The standard is Big Bets per hour. With a basis of 40 hands per hour in a B&M cardroom this means a 2 BB/hour rate would be 5 BB/100 hands.


With some home games playing at 20 hands/hour, and internet games at 100+, shouldn't the standard for discussion be something absolute?

Since the textures of the games differs anyways, there is no way to come up with something absolute for the means of finding out the "best" player based on BBs won per hour or per hand.


However, if you are playing for a living, it doesn't matter how much you are winning per hand, but per hour, unless you have an unlimited amount of time to put in. Being mortal, that's somewhat unrealistic.

"However, if you are playing for a living, it doesn't matter how much you are winning per hand, but per hour,..."


I feel it's just the opposite. Units such as hours and weeks and months and years and meaningless and arbitrary. The only unit that is steadfastly consistent and meaningful is by-the-hand, and that's how I keep my records, and think.


Tommy

...claims like the one from unbelievable make no sense otherwise. 7 big bets per hour for an extended period is no big deal...playing 2 games simultaneously, at 1-2 limit on Paradise.


But if it was Bellagio's 30-60, way way different story.


But, hey, maybe I'm just too quantitative.


A9s

I agree that "per 100 hands" would make more sense. I suppose it's just because people don't feel like keeping track of how many hands they've played at a casino, whereas it's easy to remember, "I played from 8:00 to 11:00."


I can only play online, so I keep track of my rate per hand.