20k Checkup

[naphand]

This is not realistic or even close. At $1/$2 you pretty much have to show the best hand, the rake is also much higher. These kinds of figures are impossible to achieve as any long-term proposition. You do have a big edge in terms of skill, but the requirement to SD every hand and have the best hand, severely limits your ability to extract much more than a few value bets. $1/$2 is about value bets on the end, more than anything else. With few aggressive players to bloat the pots, how are you making the extra 4 BB/100 over other games?

It is easy to think, looking at the terrible players populating those games, that you can extrapolate linearly to a higher win rate. Although no-one has done this mathematically, it must be approaching logarithmic with each higher increment much harder to achieve and approaching a maximum. You are pushing the limits of what the best hand can achieve, and when frequently all that best hand can do is put in a value bet, or a Turn raise and of course get sucked out on plenty, very high win rates remain talked about, but rarely seen.

With so much variation in win-rates between players over smallish samples, it is difficult to get an idea of what is realistically achievable, I would like to see someone, someday actually produce some kind of mathematically derived theory for win-rate. Until then, I remain skeptical, although I certainly believe win rates significantly above my overall $1/$2 win rate of 2.46 BB/100 should be possible. It is just a question of what "significant" means, and as no decent player will stick around at those levels long enough to be able to put enough "optimally played" hands together, we will likely never know.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
my overall $1/$2 win rate of 2.46 BB/100

[/ QUOTE ]

Suddenly my 2.36 BB/100 doesn't look as bad. How many hands was that over?

Scott

[naphand]

27K I think, without checking. A chunk of this was pre-2+2 SH Forum, and very weak-tight, followed by LAG-phase etc., the usual stuff. Very far from optimal.

[wheelz]

Well, I clearly did it by just getting extremely lucky. Chasing so many bad draws that got there to win huge pots... I've never kept a win rate even remotely close to that since, but for that first while on PokerStars, I just couldn't lose. I was playing so terribly too...

[naphand]

I doubt it was just extreme luck, don't do yourself down. If it has since settled down then that is just part of the game. The reason that I think a lot of people think very high win rates are possible in these terrible games, is that such runs are not uncommon. I think you do not have to be running that much above average to be able to hit 5-8 BB/100, as the players really do pay you off with complete rubbish. When I review hands I never fail to be amazed at just how far ahead I was against my opponents, and the trash they play.

I also think people consistently under-estimate how much impact the need to show the best hand has, bad runs can be brutally long-lived at $1/$2. I don't think they are as severe as the higher limits, where it is much more swings and roundabouts, but you can really go for several weeks when it is impossible to make big draws pay, and TP refuses to hold up for you; I seem to remember 27-odd flush draws missed on the trot at one point. You really need to make your fair share of draws to stay ahead of the chooks, who make all their draws (I mean trips and above). You will fold a lot of draws/suiteds PF correctly, they will always make them as they won't fold an ISD or PP or 2-suited for any money. It is like a parachute-brake (?) that just stops you getting up any speed, though clearly not for everyone.

I think there is definitely a way to play $1/$2 that is not the same style as playing more aggressive games, it is looser than the TAG "standard", which I was much closer to in the latter stages. I have seen one or two posts from some who are "testing" playing styles at $1/$2 and that really is what I did a lot, a lot of testing, not much optimal... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I think Stripsqueeze plays some $1/$2 from time to time just to remind himself of how different game conditions can be, and keep some perspective on the lower limit games. I also recall he did very well to start with, then had trouble making his "A" game pay without some considerable adjustment. $1/$2 can be very infuriating, and I think a lot of Forum readers need to know that super-high BB/100 rates really are not the norm for this level, nor are expected or even achievable, it is kindergarten for SH play which is why so many posters will recommend stepping up (or at least playing somewhere like Stars) quickly to develop your game beyond the capacity to beat terrible players and SD the best hand.

[wheelz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is definitely a way to play $1/$2 that is not the same style as playing more aggressive games, it is looser than the TAG "standard

[/ QUOTE ]

Well my VP$IP of near 39 surely isn't the TAG standard, but it was working. I think I played EVERY decent suited connector or small pocket pair, and would play them for raises if I thought there would be a few people in the pot (T9s was one of my most profitable hands). I didn't care if there were raises behind me, I'd limp UTG with 89s. After playing for a while I learned the concept of pot odds, so I finally began chasing only when I was getting the proper odds to. Suddenly the chasing I was doing became profitable instead of stupid. All my draws started hitting at the right time, and before I knew it, my BB/100 was over 7.

[blubster]

I think 4BB/100 or close to it should not be very hard at all to accomplish over the long haul at Party 1-2 6 Max. The players there have to be the worst of any other game.

blubster

[naphand]

I think 4BB/100 is achievable, but if you are winning long-term at this rate you are losing money... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I have no idea what the theoretical maximum is, I certainly believe an outstanding player (at $1/$2?) can make somewhere between 4-5 BB/100 but I have no real way to measure the impact the players who call with anything has on EV, it may raise the ceiling as far as BB/100 goes, or it may make the slope of the graph a little steeper (i.e. easier to reach the upper levels). It's complicated for sure, and cannot really be guessed at reliably based on even the collected experience here, for all the reasons already discussed.

I think the most important thing is to stop dick-measuring and set realistic goals for when you move up. I think once you can consistently beat a level for 2BB/100 then you should be looking to move up. If you are beating a game for 3BB/100 then you are late moving up. 2-3 BB/100 is an excellent win rate at any level, it may not mean you are a great player, it does mean (given a reasonable sample size, min 20K) that you have a solid, profitable game that can stand some more testing conditions.

My personal yardstick for being satisfied with my game is 2.5 BB/100. Though to be honest this probably has a lot to do with the fact that it is much easier to work with neat numbers like this in terms of $$/hr...cough, cough [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

It is the same in every sport, there are "magic" levels that people find it difficult to break through or are the "yardstick" of achievement. Funny how they always seem to be nice round numbers (unlike every physical constant in the known universe). A lot of this is to do with human psychology and the limits we impose on ourselves, so do yourselves a favour and set practical, meaningful limits. Imagine if we did not work in BB/100 but $$/100, do you think for a moment that the Europeans (euros/100) or Brits (£/100) would have precisely the same measures of success?

Just go look at the morons who play the £1/£2 games on Crypto. That's where they start....just like the others start at $1/$2 (and these games are also available, which is very funny).

And just to respond to blubsters point about the player standards at Party. Have you ever played on Crypto? Party does not have worse players, just more of them... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[HajiShirazu]

I know that this is only 14k hands, but at the very least, it shows that you don't have to be running THAT well to have insane BB/100 rates in the Party 1/2 game over a shortish time period.

TH:14,207
VPIP:21.06
SB:33.38
FSB:86.51
FBB:57.02
ATS:25.92
W$WSF: 35.53
BB/100:6.34
WTS:33.5
W$SD:56.58
PFR:14.75
AF:1.85/4.07/3.18/2.03=2.58