1.5/100
 

I've been doing a lot of "thinking and studying" after taking a month off. I'm just wondering how realistically obtainable 1.5/100bb is at the $1/2 and $2/4 limits?, is this very difficult? I'm honestly not there yet but I don't have enough hands for a clean sample, and typically for a person who can put in a couple of hours per day, how long should it typically take to reach that said goal?

G.

Re: 1.5/100
 

I think that 3 BB/100 is a realistic winrate from .5/1 to 3/6 (short).

How long does it take someone to gain the skills to beat those games for that winrate? Depends on each player.

Re: 1.5/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've been doing a lot of "thinking and studying" after taking a month off. I'm just wondering how realistically obtainable 1.5/100bb is at the $1/2 and $2/4 limits?, is this very difficult? I'm honestly not there yet but I don't have enough hands for a clean sample, and typically for a person who can put in a couple of hours per day, how long should it typically take to reach that said goal?

G.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should be pretty easy.


Through 20k hands I am at 1.35bb/100, which includes a 150BB downswing and a stretch of 10k hands of losing poker (a funk I am still working out of).

If I dont go on the horrible downswing and spend what will be about 13k hands playing breakeven poker my win rate would be around 3ish/100 and I am at best a average player.

Re: 1.5/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been doing a lot of "thinking and studying" after taking a month off. I'm just wondering how realistically obtainable 1.5/100bb is at the $1/2 and $2/4 limits?, is this very difficult? I'm honestly not there yet but I don't have enough hands for a clean sample, and typically for a person who can put in a couple of hours per day, how long should it typically take to reach that said goal?

G.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should be pretty easy.


Through 20k hands I am at 1.35bb/100, which includes a 150BB downswing and a stretch of 10k hands of losing poker (a funk I am still working out of).

If I dont go on the horrible downswing and spend what will be about 13k hands playing breakeven poker my win rate would be around 3ish/100 and I am at best a average player.

[/ QUOTE ]

um 150BB downswings aren't horrible, they are normal and common

as are extended breakeven streaks its part of the long term.

as for the OP you won't ever really know your winrate, even over 100k you can be well above or well below the true rate, so its about playing as good as possible, as often as possible

Re: 1.5/100
 

1.5BB/100 hands at 1/2 or 2/4 is very attainable. I averaged 3.72BB/100 hands at .50/1 full over 18k hands but am negative -1.38BB/100 hands at 1/2 although its only over about 3k hands. I have since switched to .50/1 and 1/2 6-max and am at 3.17 and 3.24BB/100 hands respectively. The loss at 1/2 is probably attributed to the limited sample size but since I have switched to 6-max and like it so much better I will probably not switch back any time soon. So to answer your question 1.5BB/100 hands is very easily attainable even if you just play solid ABC poker.

Re: 1.5/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
1.5BB/100 hands at 1/2 or 2/4 is very attainable. I averaged 3.72BB/100 hands at .50/1 full over 18k hands but am negative -1.38BB/100 hands at 1/2 although its only over about 3k hands. I have since switched to .50/1 and 1/2 6-max and am at 3.17 and 3.24BB/100 hands respectively. The loss at 1/2 is probably attributed to the limited sample size but since I have switched to 6-max and like it so much better I will probably not switch back any time soon. So to answer your question 1.5BB/100 hands is very easily attainable even if you just play solid ABC poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

both of your sample sizes make your WR very useless to examine. bottomset was right that over 100k hands your true WR is still not known.

Re: 1.5/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
both of your sample sizes make your WR very useless to examine. bottomset was right that over 100k hands your true WR is still not known.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that but how many people are going to play 100k hands of 1/2 before they move up. I was just trying to give my opinion on his question and use some of my personal stats to back it up.

Re: 1.5/100
 

[ QUOTE ]

both of your sample sizes make your WR very useless to examine. bottomset was right that over 100k hands your true WR is still not known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, your true winrate can never be known.

Re: 1.5/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

both of your sample sizes make your WR very useless to examine. bottomset was right that over 100k hands your true WR is still not known.

[/ QUOTE ]

how deep

1.5BB/100 is fine. I agree with johnny boy, 3BB/100 is probably sustainable as well.

Furthermore, your true winrate can never be known.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 1.5/100
 

just to cement the WR talk, GoT ran 100 100k simulations with a 1.8BB/100 17SD/100 the winrates varied from about .5 to 3.5 and the collective whole WR over the 10million hands was 1.95, yeah .15BB/100 higher than true over 10MILLION hands