Expectations for 8-tabling...

[chief444]

I don't think it's as absurd as some here think assuming:

1) You're a really good player
2) You play peak hours and are playing good games

It's kind of pointless to talk about what is and what is not attainable anyways. I just figured that since I've ripped on Smiley some in past for similar comments I'd defend him for a change. Whatever is attainable I do agree with Smiley that if you're playing 2/4 at peak hours and not beating it for a decent rate going to 8 tables all of a sudden may not be a good idea. 2/4 during peak hours has some really really easy games.

[Jake (The Snake)]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I shouldn't have said "absurd". I won't say that 4BB/100 is unattainable, as with a little luck (and good play, table selection, etc) and short sample size of course it is.

I just really doubt that over an infinite number of hands anybody could pull off 4/100 in today's conditions. I have no way of knowing this except for the fact I have never seen a 2+2er claim this win rate with > 200k hands or so. Even then, I have no idea how many hands is necessary to bound the rates.

I take exception if you think 2BB/100 is not a "decent" win rate btw. I don't think I need to point out the many many posts by some of the best posters here who have gone 50k+ hands at breakeven. My personal BB/100 at 2/4 is (0.13) over my last 45k hands. Zero point one three. Almost 0. According to Smiley that could mean I suck and should go down to 1-tabling. At 1/2 my rate was almost (5.00) over 20k hands. My 3/6 rate is very good so far. These numbers simply mean next to nothing.

I also think it's a bad idea for experienced posters to be flaunting 4BB/100 as some kind of goal when even the best players here are probably not lucky enough to come close to it.

That being said, I do agree with Smiley's general premise that one should be doing very well before adding more tables. I just think he was really off base saying 2BB/100 isn't good and 4BB/100 is a reasonable goal.

[chief444]

I never said and never meant 2 BB/100 wasn't decent. I think anyone who wins money at all at poker in the long run is better than decent. But if you play 100k hands at 2/4 and are just barely above breakeven then don't double the tables. That's all I meant.

[Jake (The Snake)]

That was actually meant to be directed at Smiley's comment, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you are only doing 2BB/100 4 tabling then you should improve your game before adding tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is probably poor advice, that's all.

[SmileyEH]

Well we're going on a little over 100k hands above 4BB/100 (maybe 60-70% at peak hours) including a 200BB downswing and a couple 10k breakeven stretches. Absurd it is not. I might not be doing it, but I also can't seem to beat anything higher than 3/6 either.

If you want to talk about confidence intervals, over 3.2k hands the other day I was beating 2/4 for at least 9BB/100 with 97.5% or over 5BB/100 with 99.9% certainty (turning on the luckbox is fun). In any case, there comes a point after playing for a long time where you know when you are running bad and when you're running good. In my experience, going 4BB/100 is running average.

I didn't say 2BB/100 isn't good (it is). It just isn't good enough in my mind to go from 4 to 8 tables. The player in question is leaving money on the table, and would be better suited improving his game and then adding more tables.

-SmileyEH

[Jake (The Snake)]

Some genuine questions for you. I know very little about win rate stuff at I tend to focus on strategy here (I once tried to read one of Bison's posts about win rates and it looked like a foreign language to me).

[ QUOTE ]
I might not be doing it, but I also can't seem to beat anything higher than 3/6 either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what this means. You might not be doing what?

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to talk about confidence intervals, over 3.2k hands the other day I was beating 2/4 for at least 9BB/100 with 97.5% or over 5BB/100 with 99.9% certainty (turning on the luckbox is fun).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see your point here. Are you saying that confidence intervals don't work? Again I know next to nothing in this area.

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, there comes a point after playing for a long time where you know when you are running bad and when you're running good. In my experience, going 4BB/100 is running average.

I didn't say 2BB/100 isn't good (it is). It just isn't good enough in my mind to go from 4 to 8 tables. The player in question is leaving money on the table, and would be better suited improving his game and then adding more tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you run at 2BB/100 for your next 100k hands, would you say you got worse at poker? Or is it not possible for you to run at 2BB/100 over that long in your opinion?

[ QUOTE ]
The player in question is leaving money on the table, and would be better suited improving his game and then adding more tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is impossible to know without looking at hand histories. Perhaps he is playing perfect poker and is running poorly.

I do agree that one is typically better off improving his game rather than adding a bunch of tables though, especially all at once.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I might not be doing it, but I also can't seem to beat anything higher than 3/6 either.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what this means. You might not be doing what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that even if I'm not winning 4BB/100 doesn't mean it's not attainable. I haven't won over a decent sample size at anything higher than 3/6 so I'm sure there are much better players out there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to talk about confidence intervals, over 3.2k hands the other day I was beating 2/4 for at least 9BB/100 with 97.5% or over 5BB/100 with 99.9% certainty (turning on the luckbox is fun).


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see your point here. Are you saying that confidence intervals don't work? Again I know next to nothing in this area.


[/ QUOTE ]

That was part bragging about my sweet 500BB session and part leading up to my other point that after a while you get a feel for when you are running bad and when you are running good. You don't need confidence intervals to tell you this (in any case it's clear I'm a 9BB/100 winner [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

Also, Mathworld has a good overview of standard deviation, confidence intervals and such here.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is impossible to know without looking at hand histories. Perhaps he is playing perfect poker and is running poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly possible, but going on the assumption that it's much more likely that the OP is a 2BB winner than a 3 or a 1, it is in my opinion much better to improve before going to 8 tables.

-SmileyEH

[SippinSoma]

[ QUOTE ]
how about you move up so you can get closer to the goal of making 3400 a day rather than a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are beating 2/4 on 4 tables, you should move up.

[chief444]

Sure, no problem. Tomorrow I'll just play 100/200 instead and just make like 6 grand, easy. Nothing to it.