"Normal" hourlyrate in 5/10 6 seatter

[rejack]

As i wrote before i got intersted about shorthanded fixed and been playing it alot this week, and after reading stuff from here and books i think i have some idea how to play and opponents dont seem to be too tough in 5/10, so what i am intersted is about what kind of hourlyrate you guys have from that game from different sites and which is best?¨

thx /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-Jack

[spydog]

I am playing 1/2 until my bankroll is sufficient for 5/10. If you are new to SH, I would play 1/2 for at least 5000 hands, 10000 being preferable. If you can beat that game for 4BB/100, then I would imagine you could be profitable at 5/10. I am beating 1/2 for around 4.5BB/100 and think I could take 5/10 for about 3BB/100 right now, but there is so much more to learn.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
think I could take 5/10 for about 3BB/100 right now, but there is so much more to learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo believes that most players vastly underestimate how hard it is to win 3bb/100 over the long term in any of these games.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
El Diablo believes that most players vastly underestimate how hard it is to win 3bb/100 over the long term in any of these games.

[/ QUOTE ]

stripsqueez believes that a swallow tail butterfly was a more attractive image than the devil

otherwise i'm with beelzebub - a sensational player might be able to make 4, or even close to 5-6 BB's/100 hands in this game - if you can make 3 long term multi tabling you are a very good player and wasted playing 5/10 - long term is like 100,000+ hands...

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
stripsqueez believes that a swallow tail butterfly was a more attractive image than the devil

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo had to use google to find out more about Australian butterflies.

[spydog]

I guess I overestimate 5/10, but there is no doubt that a good player can make at least 4BB/100 at 1/2.

[lefty rosen]

It cant be as high as 1/2 because more guys will out fox you on pots. 1/2 it's either bingoville or a guy who is obviously a smash anything type of crackhead so it's more obvious what should drag down the pot.

[Peter_rus]

How much is long term? I have 3.9 BB/100 for 31K in 5/10. Isn't it enough?

[scrub]

Yes. You are that good. No question.

scrub

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
How much is long term? I have 3.9 BB/100 for 31K in 5/10. Isn't it enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had 30k streaks of 0BB/100 and 30k streaks of 7BB/100. So, if by enough, you mean is it enough to come up with an accurate estimate of your long-term earn, no, it's definitely not enough.

[scrub]

Scrub is astonished that so many people can play a large number of hands of 5/10 short on Party and not be so sick of it that they can barely read the board anymore, let alone fetishize their winrates.

scrub

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Scrub is astonished that so many people can play a large number of hands of 5/10 short on Party and not be so sick of it that they can barely read the board anymore, let alone fetishize their winrates.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo agrees w/ scrub that online poker is largely mind-numbingly boring.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Scrub is astonished that so many people can play a large number of hands of 5/10 short on Party and not be so sick of it that they can barely read the board anymore, let alone fetishize their winrates

[/ QUOTE ]

do i hear the sound of zips being undone and people rushing for a ruler ?

i do love the use of "fetishize" but i'm unconvinced thats a word

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]
I've had 30k streaks of 0BB/100 and 30k streaks of 7BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, how much hands is a meaningful amount - your opinion?

[scrub]

Fetishize. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetishize)

And in terms of winrate, post count, and god knows what else, I'm pretty sure his is bigger... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

scrub

[naphand]

100,000

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
And in terms of winrate, post count, and god knows what else, I'm pretty sure his is bigger... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

mate, i'm 6'5' and i'm not fetishizeing when i tell you i'm in perfect proportion

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[kiddo]

If you know your winrate, your Standard Deviation (you can get it in PokerTracker), and how many hours you have played you can be 95% sure that your winrate is within:

Winrate +- (2SD)/(squareroot of hours played)

With a winrate of $35, SD $150 and 800 hours we get:

$35 +- (300/28.28)= +-$10.6

You can be 99.7% sure it is (3SD)/squareroot of hours played. That is:

$35 +- $16

If you "only" have played 300 hours (30K hands) you can, with same SD, be 95% sure it is:

winrate +- $17.34

That is, if you are winning 4BB/hour and have played 300 hours you can be pretty sure your real winrate is between $20 and $60 and you can be totally (99,7%) sure it is between $14 and $66.... (You can be 99.99994% sure it is between -$3 and $83 /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[Peter_rus]

Thank you - now i feel better to see that at least i'm a winner /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tripdad]

after 140 hands of $5/10 sh, i am right at 13.2bb/100 hands.
i think this makes me a short handed expert and clearly better than the devil and mr.chickenhawk! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

but seriously though, 3-4BB/100 hands is about right for a decent player, no matter the limit.

cheers!

[Guy McSucker]

'Bout time somebody mentioned standard deviation. Nice post kiddo.

The question I wanted to ask was: what are people's standard deviations like in these short-handed games? Any of you guys care to share?

Guy.

[grinin]

with 14,000 hands of 5/10 I have
16.5 BB/100 SD
15.6 BB/hr
which seems to be about avg.

[naphand]

This looks right to me.

I was involved in quite a debate (more a question/ignore/question/rebuff thread) with amerksmann22 a while back about the reliability of SD calculations, in which it took me a while to work out a reason why his figures appeared to be reliable (he insisted) when common sense said "nay". It occurred to me that counting hands played was wrong for the calculation, and I groped (rather incoherently) towards a reasoning for this.

This thread here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=smallholdem&Number=445039& fpart=&PHPSESSID=) has a very useful spreadsheet/graph formula for observing the kind of variance natural when playing poker (you can input your own WR/EV and SD). You can see a new graph by just hitting the "refresh" or "save" button. Run a few in succession and watch that line dance around! Then see what happens when you reduce your WR or increase your SD.... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

The leaps seemed wild to me, until I realised the graph was making its calculations on units of 100 hands (the basis of the WR and SD I use). You could also put in your hourly WR/SD as well and the graph draws in hourly units. This is the key point which kiddo has used in his calculations which amerksmann22 did not.

If your WR/SD is based on per 100 hands (or hourly rate) then so must your calculation of reliability also be based on this. Or in other words, the square root calculation is the square root of each unit of 100 hands played (or, of hours played) NOT the number of hands played. Otherwise your reliability calculation is out by a factor of 10 (the square root of 100, or the square root of whatever no. of hands per hour you play).

kiddo - why did you not save me all that posting and just chip in with this at he time dude? /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
but seriously though, 3-4BB/100 hands is about right for a decent player, no matter the limit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, El Diablo must point out that it is far harder to make 3-4BB/100 over the long term than many here think.

[naphand]

Naphand agrees with El Diablo.

Naphand suspects El Diablo has a WR less than 3-4BB/Hr.

Naphand suspects part of El Diablo wishes it was far harder.

Naphand plays poker with phial of holy water in pocket.

[SlickRick]

great thread

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Naphand suspects El Diablo has a WR less than 3-4BB/Hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you think that?

[naphand]

Naphand's intention was not to question El Diablo's statement.

Naphand's intention was to cause El Diablo torment, of the kind he inflincts on uncountable millions of wretched souls.

Naphand is prepared with holy water.

Naphand personally blames El Diablo for his recent losing streak.

Naphand's post was meant to be a descent into farce.

Naphand's prefers barbed humour. People laugh but secretly they weep, afraid it might be true.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Naphand's intention was not to question El Diablo's statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo is glad Naphand is not silly enough to question anything El Diablo might say. However, while 3-4BB is very challenging for most mortals, El Diablo scoffs at such pedestrian results.

[ QUOTE ]
Naphand's intention was to cause El Diablo torment, of the kind he inflincts on uncountable millions of wretched souls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naphand should consider less futile endeavors, as his ability to torment El Diablo is nonexistent.

[ QUOTE ]
Naphand is prepared with holy water.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo laughs.

[ QUOTE ]
Naphand personally blames El Diablo for his recent losing streak.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo laughs harder.

[ QUOTE ]
Naphand's post was meant to be a descent into farce, hopefully causing extreme humiliation to the very individual responsible for all suffering in this world.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo points out that such efforts may indeed result in extreme humiliation, but only for Naphand.

[ QUOTE ]
Naphand's humour is intentionally designed to make people laugh and squirm at the same time. They laugh but they are afraid it might be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

El Diablo does not squirm like a worm. Such actions are reserved for weak beings such as Naphand and Vehn.

[naphand]

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Guy McSucker]

Thanks for those figures.

They're lower than I expected. My SD at full tables is about 14.5BB/100 hands; I would have expected the 6-max variance to be much higher, not just a little bit higher.

Very encouraging! I think I might have to take these short handed games more seriously.

Thanks again,

Guy.

[Zele]

Party 10-20 (6 max), my SD is 16 BB/100.

[kiddo]

I have played 85K hands at 5/10 6max. My standardeviation is 15.3BB/hour. I played a lot 2/4, full ring game, last august. I had about the same SD/hour at 2/4 (bigger if you count/100).

I voluntairly put money in preflop around 20-21%, table average is somewhere around 40%. That gives you a huge advantage the rest of the hand and players at 5/10 isnt very aggressive. If I didnt play multiple tables I would do more marginal moves making my SD go up, and if I played only against good players my bad runds would be much steeper, making my SD go up.

I think that the really aggressive players at 5/10 have a little higer SD, say 18BB/hour.