winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

i know the faq says a good long-term winrate is ~8 bb/100, but i was wondering if anyone finds this sustainable at party $100 6max. assume 3-tabling.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

Yes, a winrate of 8ptbb/100 is sustainable.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a winrate of 8ptbb/100 is sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Anyone good enough to pull it off moves up before they get even close to a big enough sample size to mean anything. 8ptbb/100 LONGTERM is very tough.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a winrate of 8ptbb/100 is sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

2PTBB at NL $100 = 8PTBB at NL $25

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a winrate of 8ptbb/100 is sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

2PTBB at NL $100 = 8PTBB at NL $25

[/ QUOTE ]


???

I feel like for a $.10/$.25, max $25 buy-in game, I should average at least $4 or more for 100 hands.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a winrate of 8ptbb/100 is sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

2PTBB at NL $100 = 8PTBB at NL $25

[/ QUOTE ]


???

I feel like for a $.10/$.25, max $25 buy-in game, I should average at least $4 or more for 100 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your question? You only need to win at 25% of your NL$25 rate at NL $100 to show the same profit. Assume my PTBB at NL $100 is 5, I am making the equivalent of 20PTBB at NL $25. Why sustain 8PTBB at NL $25, when sustaining 3 PTBB at NL $100 is more profitable?

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

But the OP did ask about TPBB/100 at NL100 not NL25.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a winrate of 8ptbb/100 is sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Anyone good enough to pull it off moves up before they get even close to a big enough sample size to mean anything. 8ptbb/100 LONGTERM is very tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so you are saying it is possible to sustain the given win rate at this level. Of course, the better players are going to move up. But, if one were to choose to stay at 100NL they could sustain this winrate.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a winrate of 8ptbb/100 is sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Anyone good enough to pull it off moves up before they get even close to a big enough sample size to mean anything. 8ptbb/100 LONGTERM is very tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little bit off topic here. Is there any qualitative difference between 100 and higher limit?

Lets assume someone has 8ptbb/100 at 100NL level, what's his expectaion at 200, 400?

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, a winrate of 8ptbb/100 is sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Anyone good enough to pull it off moves up before they get even close to a big enough sample size to mean anything. 8ptbb/100 LONGTERM is very tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

A little bit off topic here. Is there any qualitative difference between 100 and higher limit?

Lets assume someone has 8ptbb/100 at 100NL level, what's his expectaion at 200, 400?

[/ QUOTE ]

My winrate at NL $100 and $200 is within .5 PTBB after 50k and 25k hands, respectively. My expectation is not to see an increase in my win rate as I move up. I would much rather try to maintain my current win rate. Maintaining your current NL$100 win rate at NL $400 means you are making 4 times your NL $100 earn. That's much more realistic goal as to what is attainable than shooting for a magic number.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]


Okay, so you are saying it is possible to sustain the given win rate at this level. Of course, the better players are going to move up. But, if one were to choose to stay at 100NL they could sustain this winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible, but would be really hard. Anyone capable of doing it would have a really hard time not tilting out of boredom for playing at the same level for so long.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

interesting responses...is 10 PTBB/100 sustainable at $50 6max?

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
interesting responses...is 10 PTBB/100 sustainable at $50 6max?

[/ QUOTE ]

quick answer: probably

long answer: noone would ever play even 1/4 of the hands required to narrow your BB/100 down to a range that gave you even the slightest inkling of what your actual true win rate is, without moving up in stakes. Except maybe Grudge. Even then the information is flawed, as you probably play differently at the end of your 250K hand stretch than you did at the beginning.

People are way too focused on a number that they'll never play enough hands to have statistical confidence in. Play g00t, move up when you're comfortable and rolled.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
interesting responses...is 10 PTBB/100 sustainable at $50 6max?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of at least a dozen people who frequent this forum can sustain that winrate. Whether they have actually played large enough sample size is irrelevant. Also most people move up long before they have enough sample.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

Sorry, I didn't clearly state my question.

What is the difference between PTBB and BB?

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I didn't clearly state my question.

What is the difference between PTBB and BB?

[/ QUOTE ]

1 ptbb=2 bb
Most people use poker tracker so it's more popular than bb nowadays.
Isn't that in FAQ?

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

nice response. thanks

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
noone would ever play even 1/4 of the hands required to narrow your BB/100 down to a range that gave you even the slightest inkling of what your actual true win rate is, without moving up in stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

250 hands/hr at 40 hrs/wk = 10,000 hands/week. 250k hands is six months of play at the same level.

Also, some people noted that 3BB/100 at $100 > 8BB/100 at $25. Yet, for those moving up and learning the game, it isn't that simple. My winrate at $50 is currently 0, tho that's for 12k hands. My winrate at $25 is 4. Without the skills to beat $25, moving up is of course pointless. Some of you had an easy time at it, but I'm not. I'm still struggling. I tried to move up to $50 yet despite some good days I couldn't justify staying there.

[ QUOTE ]
People are way too focused on a number that they'll never play enough hands to have statistical confidence in. Play g00t, move up when you're comfortable and rolled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing that 8 is sustainable means that, with skill, 8 isn't just a lucky streak. I saw someone mention running well for 10k-ish hands for 15-18 and then have that fall back down to a 8-10 average after a downswing. So, 8 isn't a lucky streak; 8 is sustainable.

This is important to know cuz it sets earn. 4-tabling $100 and making 8PTBB is $40/hr, which is a real wage. Serious money. Knowing that it is sustainable means that making a career at internet poker (at least while it lasts) is possible.

*I* want to know if 8 is sustainable, cuz if it is, then I can par-tay this winter and try to pay bills with some poker on the side. Currently, my $5/hr winrate at $25 isn't paying those bills, but it's helping. Knowing that 8 at $100 is sustainable... I'm going for it.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

this is exactly what i'm talking about:

[ QUOTE ]
My winrate at $50 is currently 0, tho that's for 12k hands. My winrate at $25 is 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

if your standard deviation is the same as mine, then after 12K hands at 0bb/100, statistically there is a 95% chance your winrate is somewhere between 6.92 and -6.92 BB/100. You have absolutely no idea if you're a winner in this game or not, but you're taking your observed win rate as gospel and making decisions based on it.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

actually if you play 6-max and get rakeback 4-tabling nl100 for 8bb/100 is more like $55-60/hr.

also, when people say it's sustainable, that doesn't mean if you work really hard you'll be able to do it. i dont want to be mean.

of COURSE making a living playing online poker is possible. making $200/hr or more is possible. but don't think just because some people do it without relying on luck means anyone can.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

[ QUOTE ]
if your standard deviation is the same as mine, then after 12K hands at 0bb/100, statistically there is a 95% chance your winrate is somewhere between 6.92 and -6.92 BB/100. You have absolutely no idea if you're a winner in this game or not

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree.

I think it's also important to pick the nit that, if some say 8 is sustainable, then the <2.5% chance that I'm playing that well says that I'm not that good. The evidence suggests that I suck at $50.

My winrate at $25 is between -3 and 11 BB/100. I'd have to say that there is evidence that suggests that I fare better against the $25 players than against the $50 players. It is more likely that I do worse at $50 than any other combination here. Just because I could be a "real" 6BB/100 player doesn't mean that it's likely. It's actually very unlikely. There's a greater chance that I'm in the (-1,0) range than in the (-2,-1) range.

As for "gospel" ... this is still money we're talking about. There's no guarantee that I'm really only a breakeven player at $50, but there's evidence that suggests that I'm not good. It is more likely that I'll make money at $25 than at $50. Furthermore, posts everywhere on this forum (in SSNL, general, the zoo, limit micros, etc) suggest that putting in more hands at $25 will let me improve my game and help me build a bankroll to attack $50 again later.

You seem to be suggesting that, because I might actually be a winner at $50, that I should be playing there. Or that, because I might actually be doing the same at both limits, that I should be at $50. I think this is a confusion between precision and accuracy... or that you think that I'm trying to read precision where there is none. I acknowledge the imprecision of these stats, but I don't doubt their accuracy.

What I see says that the most likely explanation is that I have figured out how to beat the $25 players (but not by much), and the $50 players play slightly differently and I haven't figured out how to adjust to them.

Re: winrate Q (i\'ve read the FAQ)
 

im certain 8/100 is possible at 100 6 max. those games are so beatable in non peak hours and during peak hours they are unreal. the variance, especially during peak hours tho makes it hard to believe that anybody would have a big enough sample to prove this.