![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't play on-line, as there are so many local games in my area, however, I decided to buy pokertracker and give it a try.
I'm playing .05/.10 and have played 759 hands and am averaging 8.62 BB/100. Is this a decent average? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
yea thats a great win-rate
after 10,000 hands. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
have played 759 hands and am averaging 8.62 BB/100. Is this a decent average? [/ QUOTE ] Play one single good hand all in.. If you win your winrate will skyrocket, if you lose the winrate will go down extremly.. What do you think about your sample-size if one single hand can give such effects? //Pug |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.splashpots.com/oct.html [/ QUOTE ] Great post. I'm so far from the longterm in my lifetime that I sometimes wonder what the point is. I'm better than I was a year ago, and if I play anywhere near 160K hands from today until Oct. 6, 2006, then I'll be much better then. Therefore since I am constantly improving, what exactly does my winrate at any given point reflect. I could play mediocre for the first 40K, then decently for the next 60K, then finish playing unspectacular, yet winning poker for the last 60K. My winrate at that point wouldn't really tell me much about where I was as a player right then. I think this link really goes to show that talking about winrate is stupid and everybody should focus more on decisions. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Play 10k hands and you'll have a better idea, but even that's not enough
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
10k hands is really nothing. One good day can change your stats with like 3PTBB/100.
|
![]() |
|
|