In the library with the

[ohnonotthat]

The 90%+ confidence level for "at least 1.5/100" is not what I was expecting; I was anticipating 70-75 and was leaning toward thinking it might be as high as 80 but 92.6 is a very pleasant suprise.

Thanks a bunch. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW, re. win rates for 3-6 . . .

What figures have been tossed around here in terms of the highest possible ?

I would think while there are a few "freaks" who might attain some monster numbers plaing one table, 3 per 100 would be about as high as a multi-tabler could realistically expect to attain; am I correct ? . . . Or am I confusing MY potential with that of others ?

Both she and I play mostly at STARS so assume no rake rebate(s), which leads then to the question -

How much rake does the typical winning 3-6 player pay per 100 hands ?

- I have always assumed something in the neighborhood of $10/100 for a full (9 or 10 handed) game; does this sound about right ? If so, a 25% rebate would be nice and would add substantially to the bottom line but would not turn too many losing players into winners, nor would it be enough to make a very small winner want to contemplate "quitting his (or her) day job".


Happy holidays,

- Chris

*

Note: I emboldened "winning" since in all but the rarest of instances winners pay less rake then non-winners. Also, her wont to pass on marginally profitable opportunities will lead to her paying even less rake. When I asked how much rake I was thinking of a 1.5-2.0 bb/100 winner whose style would best be described as middle of the road as regards agression.