What is the Generally Acknowledge BB/hr Win Rate for Online Pros

I make about 3K a month, sometimes more. Again this is a reason for putting off moving up. I play excellent low-stakes poker, and I understand the environment is very different at the middle stakes. This is why I do not feel comfortable tackling 5/10(or 3/6 for that matter) with out a very big bankroll to fall back on. Although I am still confident I will be a winning player at that level I am being very cautious about moving up. I did 4 table 2/4 for almost 2 months and did well. I am assuming some of the better 2/4 tables are comparable to some of the average or below average tables at 5/10(in terms of skill). Maybe I am wrong here. For right now though, getting to 5/10 is still my goal. If it bites me in the ass, I will drop back down and ride the poker explosion for a few more years. My gf should be out of college by then.

I probably shouldn't say I make 3k a month, I make between 2 and 3k a month, but I made over 3k in august(at 2/4), and I should be breaking 3k again for october.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy who is playing 8 tables at a time is going to have a much lower bb/100 winrate than the guy playing only one table. I also think that those who play lots of tables at once greatly underestimate the amount of edge over others that they're losing by playing so many tables. They think they're only losing maybe .5 or 1BB/100, they're probably losing a lot more versus someone who only plays one table.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they play so many more hands/hour that it compensates

[iceman5]

I play NL so i cant really be of much help to thsi discussion other than to say this....move up when you are ready to move up, not when someone else thinks you should be ready.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing to keep in mind when reading about people's bb/100 winrates is that there are varying degrees of multitabling going on.

The guy who is playing 8 tables at a time is going to have a much lower bb/100 winrate than the guy playing only one table. I also think that those who play lots of tables at once greatly underestimate the amount of edge over others that they're losing by playing so many tables. They think they're only losing maybe .5 or 1BB/100, they're probably losing a lot more versus someone who only plays one table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true... When I 3-table or less, I run at >2.0BB/100 at 2/4. When 8 tabling, I'm lucky to reach above 1.0, but steadily hit at 0.7. Sometimes, the bonuses are just so good that I have to do it though.

[somapopper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

20k hands is peanuts.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am assuming this is true for mid stakes, and high stakes, where the majority of the feild is average and above average skill. The run of cards is a big influence on your win rate.

But at 1/2 there is so much dead money that breaking even over a stint of 20k hands says alot more about skill then breaking even at 5/10. I don't think I've had runs were I break even, or lose for longer then 5k hands. I agree with everyone about the level of variance, and the importance of sample size, but these aspects become less and less of an issue as you drop in stakes. Mainly because the amount of dead money increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I've run at 8BB/100 over 15k hands at 5/10 only to follow it with -3BB/100 over the next 10k. Should I conclude I'm some kind of 5BB/100 prodigy, or a massive 5/10 loser? You just haven't encountered the really interesting parts of variance yet, but don't conclude they don't exist

Although your point is taken about 1/2, loose play with big pots generally increases variance, so I think this offsets your point.

I imagine you probably are a winning player, and if you can honestly evaluate your play and say you are making very few mistakes, then your true win rate is probably close to or higher than your current win rate. Just, becoming fixated on your actual winrate with a small number of hands isn't very useful.

edit: 150k isn't small, sorry I missed that the first time around. Still, never havinng any downswings is a little odd. Also, why do you want to go from 1/2 to 5/10? 3/6 seems like a pretty important step you're skipping.

[ QUOTE ]

Dude, I've run at 8BB/100 over 15k hands at 5/10 only to follow it with -3BB/100 over the next 10k. Should I conclude I'm some kind of 5BB/100 prodigy, or a massive 5/10 loser? You just haven't encountered the really interesting parts of variance yet, but don't conclude they don't exist

Although your point is taken about 1/2, loose play with big pots generally increases variance, so I think this offsets your point.



[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that bigger pots and looser games make for large variance in very short samples, but the absurd amount of dead money should quickly get a good player at a positive win rate. My BB/100 fluctuates drastically between 1k, 2k, and 3k samples, but it evens out very quickly too. This dead money concept is why the lowstake games are so profitable, and also why your winrate will converge much sooner then at a stake where the skill is higher.

The run of your cards has less and less of an influence as the amount of dead money increases, and your win rate is much more reliant on the skill of your poker play. This is why i think a smaller hand sample should give a decent picture of your win rate.

As dead money decreases the run of your cards becomes more important and the level of your skill becomes less important. This is why your win rate takes longer to converge(you can't control the run of your cards), and why I would agree a 100k hand sample will give a better picture of your BB/100. Obviously you still need to be a skillfull player to win, but 50k hand break even/losing streaks at these levels don't surprise me. If someone told they broke even or lost over a 50k hand spread at 1/2(on PP at least) I'd tell them they need to study more books.

I don't want to give the wrong impression, I don't think I can jump to 10/20 and beat those games. The skill level of winning players at that level is absurdly higher then winning players at lower stakes. But it's ironic how the roles of skill/card(or luck) change at both ends of the spectrum. I am assuming that most of the players that are toting about 100k and 200k samples are mid stake players or higher.

[ QUOTE ]


You just haven't encountered the really interesting parts of variance yet, but don't conclude they don't exist



[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing between 30k and 50k hands a month since june. I've experienced variance but variance is much different at the smaller stakes. It varies from hour to hour, as opposed to day to day, or week to week, or month to month like it does for the uber stakes players. again because of dead money and the fact that getting good cards is less of an influence on win rate at these levels. I have losing days once a week or every other week. I rarely have them 2 or 3 days in a row. I have not had a losing day since the 12th of october actually, and only a few break even days since then. I don't think I'm some poker prodigy, but it is alot easier to play perfect lowstakes poker then it is to play good middle or high stakes poker(also i play 2k hands or more a day).

[ QUOTE ]


edit: 150k isn't small, sorry I missed that the first time around. Still, never havinng any downswings is a little odd. Also, why do you want to go from 1/2 to 5/10? 3/6 seems like a pretty important step you're skipping.

[/ QUOTE ]

you edited while i was posting. but I am going from 2/4 to 5/10. I explain the reason for the skip in an earlier post, but basically my hourly rate will be the same from playing 9 or 10 1/2 tables, and from playing 3 or 4 3/6 tables. I plan to do 5 or 6 2/4 tables when i go back up to 2/4. This should increase my hourly rate. I'm guessing my hourly rate from 2/4 and 3/6 will not be much different(i wouldn't 6 table at this level i think) which is why I would rather jump to 5/10 from there. This plan is still in the works though so that might change. any advice on this from anyone would be appreciated.

[somapopper]

Yes, sorry about editing while you were posting a very thorough and intelligent response. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Have you considered giving 3/6 a provisional shot? Try to maintain your normal play at 2/4 for about 2/3rds of the month and attempt 3/6 the other third? It seems like losing your roll would be very very bad for you based on your circumstances, so I just want to advocate a very tenative approach.

As for 5/10, I'd say it's much more about table selction than lower levels. There are still some great games, but they're harder to find, and you have to have more discipline about getting up when the game turns bad.

Your buddy list becomes a huge friend, as one or two players are usually the ones making the game profitable, and these donators typically won't last that long, so it's important to keep an eye on them while they stay at this level. Also, you sound like a smart guy, so this may be obvious, but allow me to reiterate, NEVER berate the fish. If you can't type "nh" after a brutal beat, don't type anything at all. Also, don't stand for anyone else berating the fish either, the one exception to this is when fish goes after fish, that's usually a wash. I'd take it a step farther and try to keep the chat light and friendly in a game that's really profitable. With many tables you won't have time for that, but when you do it's an excellent policy. I've actually successfully managed to get some very bad players to seek me out when they sit down to play. I make the game fun for them.

Don't settle for games with total VPI under 25, unless you have a very good reason to be there. You should scout for tables where the average VPI is about 30, and pfr idealy will be 7 or lower. The exception to this is when you have a few total rocks at your table with about 8 vpi. Obviously these players are still profitable especially if they don't raise half their hands and don't protect their blinds, so you can't always go by the average.

Keep an eye on what people 3-bet you with and make notes of it. Several players who look o/w solid (or at least decent) will take strange shots at you, and if you don't keep records you'll be laying down and giving up momentum on too many hands where your opponents could be totally fos.

You can't lay down as many hands to agression as the semi-bluff and even the naked bluff are in all but the worst player's arsenal.

Anyway, hope this helps. Cheers and GL!

[soooted]

I don't know about any other middle limit players out there, but I'm making 2BB/100 playing 20-40, 4-tabling. My rate goes down to approx 1.5BB/100 if I 6-table if I play 20-40 on all 6. If I drop down to some slow 15/30 or 10/20 tables for my 5th & 6th tables, my win rate on the 20-40 climbs back up to 1.8BB/100 hands.

I think the fact that I'm a very fast typer and used to play a ton of video games helps. I take a lot of notes on players in-game (as well as long-term notes) and used codes so I can know at a glance player tendencies. This allows me to play something other than ABC poker.

There are other techniques you can implement... if a table needs your dedicated attention for a while, drop back down to 4 by sitting out. I'll usually go one hour at 4-tables, one hour at 6-tables and switch off. If I have a cold, I'll drop down to 3-tables or to 2-tabling and move up to 30/60.

Anyone else playing 20/40 as their main game and winning at 2BB/100? I think a lot of "pros" at middle limit make a lot of mistakes. Too many ppl being too aggressive early or misapplying blind steal or isolation raises. Just screwing up these concepts once or twice per 100 hands (and it comes up much more often than once or twice per 100) can easily drop your win rate by 1-2BB/hr... you go from a great win rate to break even just like that!

Anyone else with similar experience? I've been doing this well over 1M hands now. Yes, it's a lot of fricken dough (pre-tax to boot). Yes, I max out Neteller and ePassporte withdrawl limits on regular basis. It's actually a pain to pay for everything in cash. Your friends & family think you're a drug dealer.

If I can do it, I'm sure there are others.