Nano-limits rate questions. Please help.

onthebutton · #1 05-10-2005, 03:35 PM

I know that for most "micro-limits" games, 4BB/100 is considered a good sustainable rate. What about for nano-limit games? Is there a standard?

Also, how useful is Poker Tracker for game analysis when using nano-limit information (.05/.10 or .10/.20)?

Thanks for the help in advance, this board and it's posters have been invaluable as I've tried to improve my game.

aK13 · #2 05-10-2005, 03:45 PM

At nanos, I don't think 4BB is unreasonable at all. Some people are pretty confident they can push that amount even at .5/1 (I'm at about 3), but I think that if you can score 4BB/100 over a reasonable sample size, then you probably can think about moving up to higher limits.

Poker Tracker is a tool I use mostly for myself to review my game. I check out position stats, general stats (VPIP, PFR, blind stealing, etc.), and replay/review hands that I might have botched when playing live. I seldomly use it to make decisions about whether to fold/call/raise against a certain opponent, as this information is sometimes very faulty given low sample sizes. I trust what I see more -- notes I make (such as always shows down pocket pairs, bets busted flush draw), etc.

onthebutton · #3 05-10-2005, 03:53 PM

Interesting. If anything I would have guessed that I would have people coming out here and saying it should be higher than 4BB/100 at such low limits. I've been playing one week, and have probably played about 1300 hands in that time at .5/.10 and am up $10 (15BB/100). I can't believe that this is a high rate for this level, as I'm new to online games.

I don't have Pokertracker yet, but am considering it, for the same reasons you use it (self-analysis, not decision making).

aK13 · #4 05-10-2005, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. If anything I would have guessed that I would have people coming out here and saying it should be higher than 4BB/100 at such low limits. I've been playing one week, and have probably played about 1300 hands in that time at .5/.10 and am up $10 (15BB/100). I can't believe that this is a high rate for this level, as I'm new to online games.

I don't have Pokertracker yet, but am considering it, for the same reasons you use it (self-analysis, not decision making).

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I've never actually played nanos before (I started with instant bankroll, $75 at party .5/1), it's probably very possible to make your winrate over 4BB at nanos, but I still think variance should drop that rate to at least 8.

onthebutton · #5 05-10-2005, 04:19 PM

I'm definitely expecting some variance to start slapping me around, I was just wondering if anyone that has played at these levels has a good idea of what a decent sustainable rate is? Or am I the only one who plays this low that reads this board? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Weatherhead03 · #6 05-10-2005, 04:45 PM

I play nano as well and mine is about 10BB/100 but as I move up I expect it will go down a fair amount.

Schwartzy61 · #7 05-10-2005, 04:50 PM

I can't really clue you in on a sustainable rate...

But I have a little over 3000 hands at the nanos at PokerStars and Crazy Poker and have a winrate of 5BB/100. Sustaining a nice win rate isn't really a problem, but variance can really be fierce at these levels. So many people in hands and going to the river with so much leads to a huge variance in your win rate. during those 3000 hands my win rate has been down to 1.8 BB/100 and up over 7BB/100, I just had one session where I was down about 40BB in less than an hour and wound up coming all the way back for a 17BB win over 4 hours. The swings are pretty big, and I'm not a "good" poker player by any means, so a winrate above 5 I think could be done. But at that point, you will have enough to move up pretty quickly, especially when multitabling. Thats one problem with trying to find a sustainable rate, anyone that is winning at this level at a decent clip will move up before having a large enough sample size with which to prove a sustainable win rate.

I have used PokerTracker to evaluate my own play as well as others. I use bison's autorate rules, one thing you will find is that most everyone is pegged as a fish or loose aggressive. The data isn't overly reliable at this level but I use it to aid my decision making process not completely depend on it for my decisions. I generally use the data in borderline situations, in most situations I ignore it. It has certainly saved me in a couple situations. But for the most part you are either playing against a fish calling to the river with anything, only betting with a made hand, or a LAG who is betting just about any hand.

Greg J · #8 05-10-2005, 09:21 PM

I played at the nanos for a long time. I personally think a winrate of 5+/100 is sustainable because there is no rake.

That being said, don't worry about yr bb/100 winrate too much. It can be deceptive.

theghost · #9 05-10-2005, 03:53 PM

I think a higher bb/100 winrate is possible at nanolimits because someof the players just blow off their chips for fun.

The only times I play nano is when super drunk or super pissed, so small sample size, but my wr is 12bb/100.

Thriller · #10 05-10-2005, 04:49 PM

For a player of moderate ability upward, you are bound to have a substantially higher winrate in the nano limits, simply because the quality of players increases as the limits increase.

You are going to have the players that are down there, working on improving their game and playing solid, aggressive poker. But by and large, you are also going to see a great deal of poor play.

Just by sticking to any ABC starting hand requirement, you are going to blow that limit up.