Stud Winrate, possible move up?

Hi guys,

Long time lurker, first time poster. I've been slowly working my way up the foodchain at the Party Stud tables over the last few months, and had a question for you experts.

I'm very familiar with B&M expectations, but obviously the speed of online play increases things. Over my last 7500 hands, my BB/100 is 4.05. This is at $5/$10 on Party, usually playing a minimum of 2, maximum of 4 tables.

1) Is this rate considered low? I'm always looking to improve (7CS4AP is on it's way via Amazon), but don't really know what is considered average at these limits. I used the search function to take a gander at previous questions like this, but couldn't find anything definitive.

2) Is the tougher competition, and decreased multi-table potential worth the move to $10/$20? Is the difference in quality of play appreciable? Just curious to see what you guys thought.

I look forward to your input, and thanks for all your help (even if you didn't know about it) over the last few months! Merry Christmas.

KH

[Michael Emery]

[ QUOTE ]
Over my last 7500 hands, my BB/100 is 4.05.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I used to play in this game I had a winrate of slightly over 2.5/100. The person who I consider to the the best stud player on party also shared with me that they had approximately the same winrate. I hope you keep it up, but it shouldnt be sustainable. As for your next question, there is a HUGE difference between the 5-10 and 10-20/ 20-40 games on party. If you are intent on moving up it might be wise to be game selective at first. They are much tougher.

Mike Emery

Thanks, Mike.

This is exactly the kind of information I was looking for. After reading your reply, I went back through my stats from the last 7500 hands (I have them broken down by day), specifically looking for some sort of indication that my 4.05 may in fact be bloated.

I'm by no means a statistics guru, but on my worst day, I was -10.84 BB/100 (only 280 hands that day). On my best day, I was 12.35 BB/100 (520 hands that day). Those were MAJOR extremes compared to the rest of my data, and I in NO WAY am implying that I'm some kind of Uber-Player, so...

Is it possible that the games are softer now than when you were back at that level, or is 7500 hands just not a large enough sample?

Maybe I shouldn't care this much, but if there was ever a place to find out, I know this is it. Thanks again.

KH

[preiserone]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that the games are softer now than when you were back at that level, or is 7500 hands just not a large enough sample?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO your probably just on an upswing, I'm sure you'll be able to keep a decent winrate but it won't be that high. If it doesn't go down your doing phenomenally, keep it around 2/100 and your in real good shape.

[Michael Emery]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that the games are softer now than when you were back at that level, or is 7500 hands just not a large enough sample?


[/ QUOTE ]

I cant believe that the games are that much softer now than back then. When I used to 3-4 table them a year ago they were pretty good. There are posters like Istream, beta, etc. that could probably tell you better, as they still play in them. But IMO 7500 hands is FAR to small of a sample size to get an accurate number. Go to the hold'em forums and post your winrate of XBB/100 over 30K hands and people will start screaming thats not even enough to know. I do know that if you can sustain over 2BB/100 in this game you are a very good player.

Mike Emery

[Michael Emery]

As an interesting sidenote:

Just so you know the difference in difficulty between the 5-10 and the 10-20/20-40's, there is no player at the latter levels that makes 2BB/100 or more. Of course this is over a fair number of hands.

Mike Emery

[lstream]

[ QUOTE ]
There are posters like Istream, beta, etc. that could probably tell you better

[/ QUOTE ]
There are stretches of 7500 hands where you can easily hit the 4BB/100 number. However, this is way too small a number to be meaningful. You need to play long enough where you run bad for a month or two, cause it happens to everyone.

I have logged about 750 hours at 5/10 over the past several months. I track my results by the hour, not per 100. However, I think you can do a rough translation since I can typically play 60 hands per hour or so, based upon some statistics I used to keep.

I am currently tracking 1.45 BB/hour which converts up to about 2.41 BB/100 - pure table performance not counting bonuses or rakeback that I no longer get. I have to double check that 60 hands per hour when I get home. This is after about 750 hours or 45,000 hands I guess. This is also after a brutal stretch from late August to mid November where I made nothing (I am guessing this was 10,000 - 12,000 hands) .

I don't consider myself a top player compared to some of the other posters here, so maybe some of them are at 3 BB/100 or so. However, I would think you need to be one seriously good player to sustain that number in the long run. At 10/20 and up, I am not sure how I would do, but the performance would certainly come down.

Help this lurker if you would. By saying 4.05 BB/100 do you mean you win 4.05 big bets per 100 hands?

Or in other words, playing $5/10 you're winning 4.05 x $10 or $40.50 every 100 hands?

Thanks.

[preiserone]

yup thats what that means. This is a huge number though, that would be extremely dificult to sustain. A very good player might be able to get 2BB/100, 2.5 if your Mike Emery.

[BeerMoney]

7500 just isn't a lot of hands. Go to the hold em forums, they'll tell you your stats are meaningless until you hit 100,000 hands.

Right now you should be confident of 2 things:

You are probably a winning player.
You are probably running hot.

Just enjoy the two things for now.

The player pool in the stud games is so small right now, at the 10/20 and 20/40 level, straight forward ABC poker just isn't getting it done.