Shorthanded Play Win Rates for Advanced/ Good players

[Glenn]

You can't set "goals" for winrate. It's an excercise in futility. You can't win 3bb/100 just because you want all. All you can do is win as much as you can. And you should always be trying to win more.

[sdc]

Not trying to do this, just theorietically
if a good limit plays average joe a heads up in a limit freeze out 100 times, how many times would the good player win

Trying to establish the success rate of a good player playing based on the # of players seated at a table

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't set "goals" for winrate. It's an excercise in futility. You can't win 3bb/100 just because you want all. All you can do is win as much as you can. And you should always be trying to win more.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK "goals" was probably the wrong word (although I think I even disagree with you on this point). Really what I'm saying is that there are a number of reasons why I'd like to know winrates of the best players. For instance, I'd like to know what the winrates of NL players are to determine whether I should learn that game. I think its generally right to want to know whats reaslistically achievable.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's something I've wondered. Yes, you can certainly play more hands per hour shorthanded "per table", but I find it much more difficult to play multiple tables. I can manage 4 tables, but given the added importance of reads in shorthanded play, this is suboptimal. Thus, am I really getting more "quality" hands per hour in? Anyone with thoughts on this?


[/ QUOTE ]

There are a ton posts about this in the SH forum. A normal 6handed player plays 4 tables, some 6, some 3, some even 8. Most agree that if u want to play fewer people - say 2 to 3 - its hard to do more then 3 tables.

I think most will agree that u dont play so few players because u will win more, because u will have to have better reads and switch table much more often and pay more rake, so basically u sit down at a 6max table and only play 1 or 2 players because its more fun.

For many players, playing 3 tabels 30/60 against 3-4 players is much more fun then playing 6 tables 6max at lower level, even if winrate is about the same.

At 10/206max u will not find many players making more then $200/h and at 5/106max not more then $150/hour. I know a guy who 8tabled 10/206max winning +2BB/100 but there are not to many of them.

I dont know what the best players do, but someone told me not many players can make more then $1K/day over some time. They played limit holdem.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]


The best player wins ___% time heads up in a freeze out


[/ QUOTE ]

This is impossible to even begin trying to estimate for you w/o knowing how large the freezeout is, as well as just how large of difference in skill/HU experience there is.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
bicyclekick

if it were up to you how many players are seated at most of ur games?

where do you thrive relative to # of players at a table, are you playing full or short handed games?

[/ QUOTE ]

It totally depends on the type of player the opponents are. If they're high limit over aggro donks I want 6 or more players at the table. If they're passive clueless honest players I'll take HU or 3 handed any day. It really depends.

When I play live...the shorter the better I dunno. I just like to play hands and you get to play tons of them live.

[sdc]

why would you not want to play an over aggressive donk heads up?

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
why would you not want to play an over aggressive donk heads up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice I said high limit donk. The high limit over agro donk is such a better player than the mid limit over agro donk. He is a very good hand reader and relentless.

They are tough because they're donk strategy is actually very close to optimal tough and hard to beat HU.

The lower limit non-thinking overagro donks are pretty easy to beat, sure...but there really aren't that many of those. I play a lot of HU and get one of those maybe once a week tops. Still get lots of overagros...but those guys are tough enough. All I'm saying is hyper agro and thinking = tough HU opponent.

[sdc]

misunderstood
did not know donk and thinking could be used to descibe the same player

[Glenn]

Why does it matter what the best players win? What makes you assume that when you play NL you are going to be one of the best players? Why only assume that you can be a mediocre player? All that matters is what YOU win. Everyone I know who has played professionally or seriously semi-pro (mid-high limit players who make 100k+) for a long time doesn't talk about win rates. They talk about good games they think they have the biggest advantage in, good ways to play hands, and good reads. Two numbers matter to them: money at the beginning of the year and money at the end of the year. This whole BB/100 infatuation is a construction of 8-tabling 2/4 players who want poker to be a set of rules they memorize as opposed to a dynamic, constantly changing game. Sure, eventually you get an idea of how much you can win in certain situations, and what your best situations are. However, it varies so much from person to person, and even from day to day, that constantly talking about it is just trying to oversimplify poker because not knowing what will happen tomorrow is scary. That's why it's gambling, and if you can't deal with that, then you will never be a great player.