|
|
#13
12-16-2004, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: BB/100 versus BB/hour
One stat isn't better than the other. The idea that it "normalizes" anything is silly. BB/100, however, has given online players one language with which to talk and compare.
Quite simply BB/100 tells you the average number of BB you win during any given 100 hands. BB/Hour tells you the average number of BB you win during any given hour. Keep track of avg. number of hands you play during an hour, and you can figure out one from the other. One isn't better than the other. They are just two different ways of looking at the same thing. One may be more convenient than the other, but neither is more more important. Also, by recording the average number of hands you play during any given hour, you can figure out one from the other. However you choose to record your win rate, be it, BB/H, BB/100, BB/500, or BB/minute. Just keep in mind that the idea is to get as high of a rate as possible. 
|
|
#14
12-16-2004, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100 versus BB/hour
The data derived from BB/100 is more standardized and therefore more useful for comparison with other data. If someone makes 4bb/100 at 1 table of 15-30 and another makes 1.5bb/100 6 tabling the 15-30, it may be useful to compare the style of player 1 to player 2 even though player 2 has a higher hourly average.
|
|
#15
12-17-2004, 07:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100 versus BB/hour
When I said 'normalize', I simply meant that it puts everyone's win rate into a standard format so they can be easily compared. It could just as easily be standardized to BB/hr per table... the main problem is with online play, people multitable, which makes the BB/hr difficult to compare to anyone elses win rate.
|
|
#16
12-17-2004, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100 versus BB/hour
[ QUOTE ]
One stat isn't better than the other. The idea that it "normalizes" anything is silly. BB/100, however, has given online players one language with which to talk and compare. [/ QUOTE ] That's what "normalize" means. It's not a value judgement. Regards, T
|
|
#18
12-17-2004, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100 versus BB/hour
What you use depends on what you want to measure.
I think that there is two measurements that should be used (for limit play): BB/100 hands and $/hour. BB/100 hands is a measurement not of how good a player is, but how much better (or worse) he is than his opposition. I.e., a higher BB/100 can just as well be because of worse opponents as because of better play. $/hour is simply and obviously a measure of how much you make per invested time at the table(s). It does not measure how good your play is, it simply measures how good you are at making money. A player making more money per hour is not necessarily a better player - he might "just" be better at making good decisions as to maximize winnings. This can be: finding worse opponents (table selection), playing multiple tables (increasing hands/hour), balancing opponent quality/# tables/level of stakes, and taking advantage of bonuses and rake rebates. The most important measurement of the above depends on what you are interested in. If you see poker as a competition where you want to know who is the better one at playing the game, BB/100 is the measurement of interest - but you then need to make sure that the quality of the opposition is equivalent, or your numbers will be incomparable. If poker is a way to make money, as much as possible, for you, then $/hour is the measurement of interest. But in order to find your way to maximizing your $/hour, the BB/100 is still a valuable measurement, e.g. in how large the BB/100 can be against different quality of opponents, and how much it decreases as you increase your hands/hour by playing more tables. There is of course more to say about these things, but this is the basics of how I see things.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
