BB/100 versus BB/hour

[Wynton]

I have searched, but not found, a discussion of which stat is more significant (in terms of deciding how good a player you are): bb per 100 hands or bb per hour. More specifically, I'm not sure how the stats should relate. Shouldn't these stats have a direct correlation with each other, over the long-term?

I ask because last time I checked (which I can't do now, because I'm away from my home computer), I think my bb/hour was something like 1.5, but my bb/100 hands was considerably higher. Perhaps this is a function of too few hands (unfortunately, I can't recall the number of hands right now). But is it possible for someone with, e.g., 200,000 hands (far more than I have), to have a big disparity between these stats>

[Beavis68]

Mason said in another thread, BB/hr was based on 35hand/hr, so of course you BB/100 hands is going to be higher, unless you are playing NL heads-up or something.

[BUD]

BB/hr is a way to rate play at a live game. Obviously online play can vary greatly on how many hands per hour. I figure 33 hands per hour in a live game and then you can multiply by three for the comparison. bb/hr has no relevance online b/c there isn't any consistency of a # of hands played per hr.

[Wynton]

Assuming that 1-2 BB per hour is considered to be pretty good, therefore, does it follow that, when playing online, 3-6 bb per 100 hands is a decent benchmark?

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that 1-2 BB per hour is considered to be pretty good, therefore, does it follow that, when playing online, 3-6 bb per 100 hands is a decent benchmark?

[/ QUOTE ]
3BB/100 is a good number to shoot for. I know people use the 2BB/hr figure a lot for live play, but I just don't see how it is possible to sustain that kind of win rate over a meaningful number of hands unless your opponents are absolutely horrid.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
I think my bb/hour was something like 1.5, but my bb/100 hands was considerably higher. Perhaps this is a function of too few hands (unfortunately, I can't recall the number of hands right now). But is it possible for someone with, e.g., 200,000 hands (far more than I have), to have a big disparity between these stats>

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's expected. These stats will never be the same unless you play exactly 100 hands an hour.

[Michael Davis]

"unless your opponents are absolutely horrid."

There's your answer.

-Michael

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that 1-2 BB per hour is considered to be pretty good, therefore, does it follow that, when playing online, 3-6 bb per 100 hands is a decent benchmark?

[/ QUOTE ]
3BB/100 is a good number to shoot for. I know people use the 2BB/hr figure a lot for live play, but I just don't see how it is possible to sustain that kind of win rate over a meaningful number of hands unless your opponents are absolutely horrid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah 3BB/100 is what mason said in his post/

[__Q__]

My big bet per hour rate is signifcantly higher when multi-table than when I only play one. Is this also normal? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[niin]

That only makes sense. This is the main reason people started looking at BB/100 hands instead of BB/hr, since that normalized everyone's rate to a standard value.

When everyone just played live single tables, BB/hr made sense since everyone's hands per hour was approximately the same.