[jhall23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
winning 160K in a month at 10/20 limit would be immensely phenomenal

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? He won the money playing NL, not 10/20 limit. Wasn't that the point of the thread? When James plays limit he plays considerably higher than 10/20, as other posts have indicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes I am fully aware

why do you think I posted in the NL forum...

I wanted to know what the comparable expected winrate at 10/20 NL would be in comparison with 10/20 limit (where 3BB/100 is excellent). It must be much much higher, because a 3BB/100 winner at 10/20 limit would win 160K in a month roughly never. Not to hold your hand through this analysis too much, but the obvious conclusion is that 10/20 NL players must win at a much higher rate per 100 hands. I don't play NL and I accordingly have no clue of what a "good" winrate is. Is it OK if I ask in this forum? Thank you.

And, as I also said, NL has the reputation of having LESS variance than limit so it is even LESS likely for 'outliers' (freakishly lucky months) to occur... So the 160K month should be more repeatable at NL than a 160K month at limit. If James282 could have a 160K month at 10/20 NL we can expect top NL players to have similar types of months with relative consistency... I want to know if this hypothesis is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course your right, it would be virtually impossible to wind 160K at 10/20 limit.

But 10/20 No-limit is a much bigger game, it probably plays more like 50/100 or 100/200 limit in regards to size. So you are not comparing similar games.

Not sure what winrates are possible at 10/20NL, at the smaller games a good player can beat them for >10BB/100.