Terms & Conditions

Internet Magazine

Non–US new players
Get five 2+2 books


Order Books
Book Translations
Forum Login
 
 
Expand All   Collapse All

 Two Plus Two 
2+2 Magazine Forum
Special Sklansky Forum
2+2 Pokercast
About the Forums

 General Poker Discussion 
Beginners Questions
Books and Publications
Televised Poker
News, Views, and Gossip
Brick and Mortar
Home Poker
Beats, Brags, and Variance
Poker Theory
Poker Legislation

 Coaching/Training 
StoxPoker
DeucesCracked

 German Forums 
Poker Allgemein
Strategie: Holdem NL cash
Strategie: Sonstige
Internet/Online
BBV
Small Talk
German Poker News

 French Forums 
Forum francophone
Strategie
BBV (French)

 Limit Texas Hold'em 
High Stakes Limit
Medium Stakes Limit
Small Stakes Limit
Micro Stakes Limit
Mid-High Short-handed
Small Stakes Shorthanded
Limit––>NL

 PL/NL Texas Hold'em 
High Stakes
Medium Stakes
Small Stakes
Micro Stakes
Small-High Full Ring
Micro Full Ring

 Tournament Poker 
Small Stakes MTT
High Stakes MTT
MTT Community
STT Strategy
Tournament Circuit

 Other Poker 
Omaha/8
Omaha High
Stud
Heads Up Poker
Other Poker Games

 General Gambling 
Probability
Psychology
Sports Betting
Other Gambling Games
Entertainment Betting

 Internet Gambling 
Internet Gambling
Internet Bonuses
Affiliates/RakeBack
Software

 2+2 Communities 
Other Other Topics
The Lounge: Discussion+Review
El Diablo's General Discussion
BBV4Life

 Other Topics 
Golf
Sporting Events
Politics
Business, Finance, and Investing
Travel
Science, Math, and Philosophy
Health and Fitness
Student Life
Puzzles and Other Games
Video Games
Laughs or Links!
Computer Technical Help
Sponsored Support Forums
RakebackNetwork
RakeReduction.com
Other Links
Books
Authors
Abbreviations
Calendar
Order Books
Books by Others
Favorite Links
Feedback
Advertising Information
Home
Posting Hints
Privacy Notice
Forum Archives

The 2+2 Forums

Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 2/26/2006)

Be sure to read the   Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

This is an archive. The main forums are here

These forums are read only.


 
UBB.threads™ Groupee, Inc.

Limit Texas Hold'em >> Small Stakes Shorthanded

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
ghettorat
stranger


Reged: 09/09/03
Posts: 22
Loc: Unfortunately New England
Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed?
      #974581 - 08/30/04 09:23 PM

I am just starting out playing shorthanded, 5-max and 6-max. What would be an expected win rate, BB/hr or BB/100 hands?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TazQ
member


Reged: 07/07/03
Posts: 175
Loc: Littleton, CO
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: ghettorat]
      #974694 - 08/30/04 10:08 PM

2-4 BB/100 for a good player 2-4 tabling.

I think 2 BB/100 is obtainable 8 tabling the sh tables.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
spydog
stranger


Reged: 01/13/04
Posts: 7
Loc: Phoenix
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: ghettorat]
      #974733 - 08/30/04 10:23 PM

Up to 5BB/100 at 1/2 at Party Poker
Up to 4BB/100 at 2/4 at Poker Stars

These based only on my experience.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
benfranklin
member


Reged: 01/21/04
Posts: 155
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: spydog]
      #974803 - 08/30/04 10:53 PM

Quote:

Up to 5BB/100 at 1/2 at Party Poker
Up to 4BB/100 at 2/4 at Poker Stars

These based only on my experience.




Are you playing multiple tables, or one at a time? I'm curious about whether you are getting any read on your opponents (or need any at those levels), or if you are just playing the cards. Thanks.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ghettorat
stranger


Reged: 09/09/03
Posts: 22
Loc: Unfortunately New England
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: benfranklin]
      #974865 - 08/30/04 11:10 PM

Just as a guess, I suspected that 4-5 BB/100 hands is possible even playing 1 table.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Matty
stranger


Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 14
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: ghettorat]
      #975041 - 08/31/04 12:18 AM

Quote:

Just as a guess, I suspected that 4-5 BB/100 hands is possible even playing 1 table.


Your BB/100 is going to be higher if you play one table. I think you might be confusing BB/100 with BB/hr.

When I play one table of 1/2 Party, my win rate is around 3.5/100 ( I know it can be a lot higher).

4-tabling it is around 2.4/100

I've been playing for almost a month.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ctv1116
member


Reged: 12/18/03
Posts: 124
Loc: Princeton, NJ
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: ghettorat]
      #975065 - 08/31/04 12:24 AM

Through 50K hands of Party 1/2 6max, I have a 3.5 BB/100 clip, and I know I'm probably still leaving some money on the table (virtually no game selection, no reads).

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
kiddo
enthusiast


Reged: 12/02/02
Posts: 335
Loc: Stockholm, Sweden, Europe
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: ghettorat]
      #975633 - 08/31/04 05:24 AM

This year, I have played more then 100K hands at 5/10 SH (playing 3 tables). Im just below 3BB/100. I think you could win a little more (for a while I thought 4BB was reachable, not so sure about that after this "bad running" summer ), but most ok players are around 2-3.5BB/100. At 10/20 its a little lower. At 1/2, of course, higher.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
naphand
addict


Reged: 06/16/03
Posts: 550
Loc: Bournemouth, UK
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: spydog]
      #975956 - 08/31/04 09:27 AM

I seriously doubt whether 5BB/100 is achievable in any game long-term. Sure with great table selection and good reads it might seem like this, but the inherent unreadability of the loosest/dumbest games means you cannot do more than take your mathematical edge (less rake) - there is not much outplaying possible. At "higher" limits you can outplay your opponents and get better reads, much higher and the players obviously improve considerably.

It would be nice to see some sort of theoretical calculation for this, it must be possible based on PF standards alone, which may not be 100% accurate but would give some indication of the true differential involved.

There are different mechanics involved at the different limits, and it is not as simple as "they are worse so I must be able to beat them for more" as the looser the games are, the more your win rate relies on having the best hand at SD. From posts made on this forum a good win rate is 2-3 BB/100 and an excellent player 3-4 BB/100.

I am tempted to believe El Diablo when he says that 3BB/100 is probably the ceiling at $10/20. There are a number of players with a lot of games under their belts at $5/10 who are 3-4 BB/100. These may in fact be the most profitable games, as the best mixture must surely be looseness and aggression. Lower limits and loose/passive games can be exceptionally profitable for spells, but the inevitable horrible suckouts and poor runs (where you are missing a lot of flops, or never improving or getting no playable hands) will drag your win rate back to something realistic sooner or later. You pretty much have to be best at SD at $1/2 against all hands and that sets a ceiling that I would be surprised to see higher than 4BB/100 long-term. The rake can account for an extra 1.5 BB/100 between $1/$2 and $5/10. which is likely more than enough to counter the stupider players.

The obstacles you need to overcome at lower limits really are impenetrable - a more punishing rake structure and the need to have the best hand at SD against all hands, do not underestimate the impact of these constraints.

Anyone care to present a theory of win rate?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter_rus
addict


Reged: 05/18/04
Posts: 647
Loc: Moscow
It's very interesting [Re: naphand]
      #976493 - 08/31/04 12:10 PM

It's very interesting question about the limits of BB/100.

Lets say we're HU with total stupid calling station which call every bet you do and check all the time you check and complete every SB. So every your hand see SD and the only work you must do - is to betting when you're ahead of totally random hand. So you MUST raise 50% of your hands. I count EV*probability of a hand for this 50% hands to find out overall EV.

It's equals 8.03BB for your 50% of positive hands instantly on PF. Lets minus the times you loose on SB as you're forced to complete SB if it's 1/2 of BB ALWAYS cause you have odds and will go for SD all the time without paying.

I think it will be around 0.02 BB/hand (just my opinion) and equals 0.02*25%= -0.5BB (25% as you will be on SB 50% of time and 50% of time you will hold negative value hand)

And finally lets see BB which will loose nearly 0.04BB/hand and 0.04*25%=-1BB for 25% of OVRL hands you will loose on BB

So let's see:

50% of hands you raising to get 8BB instantly
25% of hands you complete on SB to loose 0.5BB
25% of hands you check on BB to loose 1.5BB instantly

8BB-1BB-0.5BB equals nearly 6.5BB/100 hands you can achieve on PF HU against mindless calling station.

It's rough and simulations can find the cypher more accurately but it shows that against even total stupid guys there is a limit to win/per 100 hand.

If we change a bit situation and play against super LAG who will cap PF with ALL hands he hold our results will be better. As we as earlier forced to play any of our hands on BB and forced to fold our SB nearly 40% of time (40 - not 50 cause some hands have odds better than 3:5 (or 0.75:1.25) - i guess we will loose nearly 0.1BB/hand here) as we have no odds as earlier as BB would raise and we will loose twice more on BB. But we will win twice more with our +ev hands. So we have

50% of hands you capping to get 16BB instantly
20% of hands you fold on SB to loose 5 BB
5% of time we complete SB to loose 0.5BB instantly
25% of hands you call on BB to loose 3BB instantly

16-5-0.5-3=7.5BB/100

As i talk earlier total LAGs pay more when they behind and that's why total maniac is better than total caller.

P.S. I don't pretend to be math pro but suspect that this is nearly correct.


Naphand, consider also that in 10/20 games rake is nearly 1.5 times less than in 5/10 - so i suspect as players has a bit more clue there you still can achieve the same results as in 5/10 games.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
naphand
addict


Reged: 06/16/03
Posts: 550
Loc: Bournemouth, UK
Re: It's very interesting [Re: Peter_rus]
      #976644 - 08/31/04 12:35 PM

Excellent post Peter, even as a rudimentary investigation we can draw some conclusions. I also think that trying to build a model that is more than rudimentary will be too difficult, I like the simple examples you use.

EDIT: You did not factor into account the rake! Ignoring the fact that HU is killed by the rake, typical rakes I have in PT are 3.5 BB/100 at $1/2 (shared between the players) and 2.5 BB/100 at $2/4 (anyone have figs for the higher limits?). Anyone care to comment about the win rate HU compared to 6-handed?

I wonder if you can stretch this example to 3 players, one passive one LAG? I guess with a LAG who always raises and a loose-passive who always calls, the profitability of a loose-passive plus LAG table would be the same as two LAGs? (assuming LAG always caps). This must have implications; one LAG on an otherwise passive table will make the table much more profitable?

HU what would the effect be if LAG folds 33% raises 33% and caps 33% PF? and then calls down the hands he just raised PF and caps the ones he capped PF with? A little more complicated but probably more realistic.

I am not that surprised that the limit is as "low" as 6.5 and 7.5 BB/100. This example demonstrates very well not just that LAG players are more profitable, but that the loose players that frequent the lower limits are harder to beat for BB on top of paying the higher rake. No wonder some people say you cannot beat low limit tables...

Edited by naphand (08/31/04 12:45 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter_rus
addict


Reged: 05/18/04
Posts: 647
Loc: Moscow
Re: It's very interesting [Re: naphand]
      #976792 - 08/31/04 01:12 PM

Quote:

I wonder if you can stretch this example to 3 players, one passive one LAG?




It's not countable good "by fingers". I need to write special soft to perform such investigations or probably buy one of existant.

Quote:

I guess with a LAG who always raises and a loose-passive who always calls, the profitability of a loose-passive plus LAG table would be the same as two LAGs?




Yes, but with 2 lags you will suffer from higher variance cause you will be forced to go to SD with marginal hands to maximize your overall EV and paying more while when a caller exists you still have option to call. And LAG cannot cap when don't face raises.

Quote:

one LAG on an otherwise passive table will make the table much more profitable?




Defenitely. LAG will build big pots for you when you're ahead.

Quote:

HU what would the effect be if LAG folds 33% raises 33% and caps 33% PF? and then calls down the hands he just raised PF and caps the ones he capped PF with? A little more complicated but probably more realistic.





Than you must 3-bet 33% of hands, and try to cap 15 and fold SB around 25-30% or something of time and fold BB to a raise 20-30% of time. But still you must raise first from SB 50% of time when you're better than random i believe. Every not "reasonable" tricks and betting patterns are beatable in a long term. Some with higher EV some with less (when they are close to decent). Analizing them and find and use counter strategy is a work which comes with your experience. Math can only show you directions but not saves from everything at all you can face ahead.

Quote:

but that the loose players that frequent the lower limits are harder to beat for BB on top of paying the higher rake.




Problem with higher limits is that more players tend to play well and you can't make money from them long term.

It's fun to see table where many hands getting HU with calling station who calls decent raise with everything. So you will find often yourself in situations when 2 or even 3 decent players divide between them money of the rest, while on 1/2 or 5/10 you often find yourself getting money from everyone you play.

But yes i agree that higher rake greatly reduce cost of LP mistakes to you and that's why maybe lower limits can be not so profitable. But the one thing i believe that lower levels are easier and more mechanical to play than higher.

Last week i play a bit of 1/2 just to remember how it was. I find that i'm total LAG for them and change gears to have a fun and become to win a little but find it pretty boring and quit.

...Then i back to 10/20 and find that i became too passive Now i'm right and don't want to make such moves more


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ulysses
Carpal \'Tunnel


Reged: 09/02/02
Posts: 5519
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: naphand]
      #976834 - 08/31/04 01:22 PM

Quote:

I am tempted to believe El Diablo when he says that 3BB/100 is probably the ceiling at $10/20.




Just to clarify, I think it's somewhere around there, but could be as high as 3.5BB/100.

And in the discussions we've had about this ceiling, it has been in the context of 3-tabling or 4-tabling.

I'm sure that higher rates are possible playing just 1 or 2 tables.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
spydog
stranger


Reged: 01/13/04
Posts: 7
Loc: Phoenix
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: benfranklin]
      #978701 - 08/31/04 10:47 PM

Quote:



Are you playing multiple tables, or one at a time? I'm curious about whether you are getting any read on your opponents (or need any at those levels), or if you are just playing the cards. Thanks.




I only play 2 tables at a time. I'd like to think that I can get a read on most opponents, especially with the help of the stats I export from Poker Tracker. I think that may add up to 1BB/100 hands, but mainly it's playing the cards and the fact that 95% of the players at this level play poorly and are unperceptive. They just never seem to adjust to my aggressive play.

Also, understand that I study hands I've played in PT and try to read as many posts in this forum as I can.

My sample size is a bit small. I have 24k hands at 1/2 and 8k hands at 2/4.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Blarg
veteran


Reged: 06/06/04
Posts: 1519
Re: Quick question - Expected BB/hr winrate 6-handed? [Re: ghettorat]
      #983206 - 09/02/04 02:17 AM

Very interesting post! That's a lot of BB/100 you guys are talking about. I've just been playing some 6max today and it seems pretty fun so far.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 10 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mat Sklansky 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 883

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us 2+2 Publishing

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Message Boards and Forums Directory Message Boards and Forums Directory