160K in 1 month for a NL novice- easy?

[rohjoh]

[ QUOTE ]
How did James282 pull it off?

[/ QUOTE ]

160 is a good month at 10-20.

He probably got a lot of hands like this at 3-4 tables at a time.

Total number of players : 10
Seat 5: MATH1243 ( $3467 )
Seat 6: smallstakes ( $676 )
Seat 7: hero ( $3512 )
Seat 4: rollofcoins ( $1024 )
Seat 3: JSChoi ( $2217 )
Seat 8: UnclePaul4 ( $940 )
Seat 9: kogo9 ( $1960 )
Seat 2: cashcastle ( $0 )
Seat 10: Isabelle34 ( $2000 )
Seat 1: xxpunisherxx ( $2000 )
JSChoi is sitting out.
rollofcoins posts small blind [$10].
MATH1243 posts big blind [$20].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to hero [ 3s 3h ]
JSChoi has left the table.
smallstakes calls [$20].
hero calls [$20].
UnclePaul4 folds.
kogo9 folds.
rollofcoins calls [$10].
MATH1243 raises [$105].
smallstakes folds.
hero calls [$105].
rollofcoins folds.
** Dealing Flop ** [ 3c, 5s, 6s ]
MATH1243 is all-In [$3342]
hero calls [$3342].
** Dealing Turn ** [ 6c ]
** Dealing River ** [ 4h ]
MATH1243 shows [ As, Kc ] a pair of sixes.
hero shows [ 3s, 3h ] a full house, Threes full of sixes.
hero wins $6971 from the main pot with a full house, Threes full of sixes.

[PGarlic]

That hand is sickening, Jesus.

[JohnnyHumongous]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
winning 160K in a month at 10/20 limit would be immensely phenomenal

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? He won the money playing NL, not 10/20 limit. Wasn't that the point of the thread? When James plays limit he plays considerably higher than 10/20, as other posts have indicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes I am fully aware

why do you think I posted in the NL forum...

I wanted to know what the comparable expected winrate at 10/20 NL would be in comparison with 10/20 limit (where 3BB/100 is excellent). It must be much much higher, because a 3BB/100 winner at 10/20 limit would win 160K in a month roughly never. Not to hold your hand through this analysis too much, but the obvious conclusion is that 10/20 NL players must win at a much higher rate per 100 hands. I don't play NL and I accordingly have no clue of what a "good" winrate is. Is it OK if I ask in this forum? Thank you.

And, as I also said, NL has the reputation of having LESS variance than limit so it is even LESS likely for 'outliers' (freakishly lucky months) to occur... So the 160K month should be more repeatable at NL than a 160K month at limit. If James282 could have a 160K month at 10/20 NL we can expect top NL players to have similar types of months with relative consistency... I want to know if this hypothesis is correct.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]

And, as I also said, NL has the reputation of having LESS variance than limit so it is even LESS likely for 'outliers' (freakishly lucky months) to occur... So the 160K month should be more repeatable at NL than a 160K month at limit. If James282 could have a 160K month at 10/20 NL we can expect top NL players to have similar types of months with relative consistency... I want to know if this hypothesis is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing James ran better than anyone last month. This month, it will be a totally different guy. Same for next month. It's likely he will never have another month even close to this.

[ghostface]

He made $3 a hand. Thats 15BB/100.

[jhall23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
winning 160K in a month at 10/20 limit would be immensely phenomenal

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? He won the money playing NL, not 10/20 limit. Wasn't that the point of the thread? When James plays limit he plays considerably higher than 10/20, as other posts have indicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes I am fully aware

why do you think I posted in the NL forum...

I wanted to know what the comparable expected winrate at 10/20 NL would be in comparison with 10/20 limit (where 3BB/100 is excellent). It must be much much higher, because a 3BB/100 winner at 10/20 limit would win 160K in a month roughly never. Not to hold your hand through this analysis too much, but the obvious conclusion is that 10/20 NL players must win at a much higher rate per 100 hands. I don't play NL and I accordingly have no clue of what a "good" winrate is. Is it OK if I ask in this forum? Thank you.

And, as I also said, NL has the reputation of having LESS variance than limit so it is even LESS likely for 'outliers' (freakishly lucky months) to occur... So the 160K month should be more repeatable at NL than a 160K month at limit. If James282 could have a 160K month at 10/20 NL we can expect top NL players to have similar types of months with relative consistency... I want to know if this hypothesis is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course your right, it would be virtually impossible to wind 160K at 10/20 limit.

But 10/20 No-limit is a much bigger game, it probably plays more like 50/100 or 100/200 limit in regards to size. So you are not comparing similar games.

Not sure what winrates are possible at 10/20NL, at the smaller games a good player can beat them for >10BB/100.

[JohnnyHumongous]

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure what winrates are possible at 10/20NL, at the smaller games a good player can beat them for >10BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really... and that is fairly consistent month to month? Do NL players "run bad" in the sense that a 10BB/100 winner could have a down month? In limit there is much more variance, yet if it were possible to win 10BB/100 that player would never have a losing month (or week or day probably). What is the worst month a 10BB/100 winner could expect to have at NL? I know it's a lot of questions, thanks for bearing with me.

[James282]

The 10/20 has a ton of variance. It's going to be tough for people to answer your questions if you don't know which questions to ask. You also didn't even read my responses to you when I said I didn't make 160k playing NL. Post questions like this in the small stakes NL forum or the beginner forum, as these sorts of inquiries aren't helpful for anybody.
-James

[johnnycakes]

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to know what the comparable expected winrate at 10/20 NL would be in comparison with 10/20 limit (where 3BB/100 is excellent).

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "10/20 NL" the "10/20" part is the blinds.
When you say "10/20 limit" the "10/20" part is the stakes.
The limit game with 10/20 blinds is 20/40.

So, when you say xxBB/100 at NL, you are saying xx BIG BLINDS per 100.
When you say xxBB/100 at limit, you are saying xx BIG BETS per 100.

Therefore the xxBB/100 NL should be at least twice as high as the xxBB/100 limit at comparible stakes (what is "comparible stakes" is another argument).

[HoldEmKillah]

I'll give my take although there are lots of old threads about winrates, etc. AT NL100 and below a good player can make around 15bb/100 (all this according to PT BB's btw). At 2/4 and 3/6NL, a really good player can make 7-8bb/100 (I'm at 5.5 at both).

Although I haven't played enough 5/10 and higher I would assume that 7bb/100 is maxin' it out so to speak and that a good player can be happy making 4-5bb/100. Higher limit players can speak better about those winrates at these levels though.