I wouldnt hold my breath^^^.


And where is this list of players beating medium stakes for 7BB+/100?


I can assure you thats a very short list.


The majority of players that make claims like that dont understand variance and are on a 30k hand heater like bluntster and confuse that with a true winrate.


If you truly beat NL200 or NL400 for that much you are probably one of the better poker players in the world.

I mostly agree with what you said. Do you have to be a beast to consistently beat 200NL for 2+ BB/100 on any poker site, period? Yes. But I don't think it is accurate to make a blanket statement like that that encompasses all the different player pools. In the sense that, I think a prime time beast on one site can have a totally different winrate on a different site - both over very large sample sizes. The differences among certain sites should make that obvious, I mean Carbon, Bovada, FTP & PStars are each 3 very very different categories of sites.

I regards to someone killing 200NL, lol, you need to check out my boy ReASonZ (don't actually know him, wish I did), who is absolutely killing the 200NL game over at Carbon (toughest site in the world?) through 257k hands:

http://www.poker-edge.com/poker-player-stats/ReASonZ

Ive see better stats. Ive been in this game for awhile.

That doesnt make anything I said inaccurate.

Many online pros play about a million hands a year.

A 7BB/100 player would be making nearly 300K a year before RB.

I can assure you that there just arent very many NL200 players making over a quarter mill a year even before RB.

Its just not a reasonable expectation if you arent an elite player.



Having said all that, good luck, dont let the results of others determine your ceiling.

I hope you can win for 10BB/100 at even higher stakes.

Who's blunster btw? Giraffe please.

Just a poster that was bragging about his winrate a few posts back after playing just 30k hands in three months.

I only brought him up because he was used as an example of someone sustaining an 8BB/100 winrate at medium stakes.

No offense to him, winning anything at poker is great to be honest, regardless of the sample size.

Wait, wouldn't someone playing a million hands a year of 200NL with a 7BB/100 winrate win only 140k before rakeback?

(7BB/100 hands) x ($2/BB) x (1MM hands/year) = $140k/year

That sounds reasonable for a 200NL pro/beast. You are right though, I'll just have to see for myself. You must conceive it before you can achieve it, as they say

I honestly have no clue what is possible. Sounds like you got some other input on this so I'll let those who are more qualified give their opinion. I'm a SNG/tourney format player.

No.

A BB = 2 big blinds.

What you are talking about is earning 3.5-4 BB/100, which is a much more reasonable goal for a good player.

We refer to big blinds as bb.

BB is big bets which is a limit poker term but has become standard in evaluating winrates in all forms of poker.

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I feel like we need to do a better job of broadcasting the fishiness of bovada, so that we can get more regs on the site. Maybe a reddit thread?

Yeah, inorite?

Don't look now, but there are even strategy forums here where people help each other improve the way they play. Help people improve the way they play!!1!111!! Can you believe that ****?

holdem indicator still not working

Only shows either "me" or player 2
For stats on the table

I've full screened, restarted, ran as admin and no luck

Ohhhh gotcha. My bad, but thanks for the explanation. Good to know that the winrate I had in mind is much more reasonable though.

HEM/PT expresses winrate in bb/100 right? Not BB?

Question about Zone. If I'm in the bb and I have some garbage hand I'll usually just hit the check/fold button and I'm put at a new table. What happens if it is folded all the way around? Does the sb & bb just get put into my account?

Is that why you guys think 8BB per 100 is not sustainable because at a 1/2 table that would be $16 per 100 hand if BB stands for big bets. But really 8 BB (Big Blinds) per 100 is pretty achievable, correct?

I know online is so much different then live play, and that you have to anticipate and be ready for variance. But I also think it's a bad idea to think something can't be achieved just because it is unusual. My friend is a live pro and he wins easily 90% of his sessions plus. I wouldn't have believed it possible except I have been going to the casino and playing a lot more live poker and every time I go he usually triples up within a few hours and quits for the day. He does that every day. I looked in his hand written log book that he keeps and he routinely has win streaks of 16-20 sessions in a row. Now he loses a lot of his winnings back playing table games but observing his success at live play over the last few months has given me a new perspective on what is achievable and what sort of expectations a person should set for themselves.

is it me or do they come out with a new cash bonus every month for people to sign up. This week i signed into a new cash bonus start sept 30th.

10BB+ is sustainable, you just have to table select extremely well and not play less profitable games. Look at several of the well known bumhunters on FTP/stars.

Seeing as I'm not privy to the liquidity of the 200NL games, that number may or may not be achievable for x number of hands over x time period at Bovada while being picky in what games you play.

Don't know about HEM, but PT4 switched to bb/100 instead of BB/100 but they left the BB label in several places. Nothing like introducing more confusion.

Your a very smart person. People want you to believe that there is a BB/100 winrate cap that is achievable and nothing higher simply because it hasn't been done before or they haven't witnessed it themselves. Same goes for ROI's in SNG's. There is no such thing as a maximum winrate.

In my personal opinion, what Bovada is doing is so very clearly the right direction.

I guess I just think differently than other people. Let's say I'm playing a 9man turbo sng with me and 8 other fish. In scenario 1, you give us all HUD's. (traditional) In scenario 2, none of us have HUD's. (Bovada) Where do you think my higher winrate will be? It seems to me that everyone will say option 1 of course because you have more information at hand, but to me the answer is so clearly option 2.

In scenario 1, I don't need a hud to tell me to bet/fold. I don't need a hud to tell me that player 4 limpfolds at 100/200 in a sng with 1500 starting stacks. The fish however needs his hud for information about me because, well, he's a fish so he sucks at poker.

In summary, at least IMO: Taking information away from me isn't going to hurt my bottom line nearly as much as giving a weaker player better information, because he needed his information wayyyyyy more than I do to be successful. Especially when you consider the fact that as pros without huds, we will still work for the information by taking notes etc, whereas a fish won't even try. How can us having HUDs and giving us just a snippet more information (since most of our play is generalized by bet/fold anyway most of the time vs inferior opponents) be better for us profitability wise when it makes the weak players so much stronger? We lose so much more than we gain.

And for what it's worth, post-bf I've played on and off without a HUD (I go back and forth with it) but most of the time without, and i've crushed. Granted I'm a microstakes guy, but still. There's no doubt in my mind that even without Holdem Indicator on Bovada, we should have zero problems destroying these games. Have you seen what they do? lol. It's like the fabled myths and fairy tales I was told of how poker used to be in 2004 come to life! It's amazing.

To be honest, I have and will always believe that HUDs are nothing but a cancer to poker. They heavily stunt your growth as a player, and IMO they just clutter the screen when trying to mass multitable, I already have way too much going on and don't need more information in my face. It's not that difficult to mass multitable without a HUD (at least at my stakes) you just play a general strategy across the board of bet/fold and assume everyone is bad and not check/raise bluffing the turn unless you see it once and can then adjust. It's optimal anyways, and makes life so much easier. Besides, who cares if one guy abuses you by check/raise bluffing the turn a few times when 99% of them are not? I actually think HUDs are cheating to be honest because you didn't gather the information yourself, but that's a whole other debate.

Yeah, due to the difference between BB and bb, people thought I meant $32 per 100 hands at $1/$2. But the consensus seems to be that $16 per 100 hands at $1/$2 is much more reasonable. I agree with both, the former is unreasonable and the latter is reasonable.

What prepaid card can I use on bovada?

Lol we just had this debate ITT. Great points brought up on both sides but, at the end of the day, if poker is ever fully legalized in US again there will be no HUDs (as we know them, eg HEM). So instead of debating whether HUDs are good or bad, a necessity or cancer, or etc, we should just be focusing on building strategy in a HUD-less environment.

Things like how to take notes, what kind of things to take note of, as well as how to maximize efficiency when observing other players' behaviors while multi-tabling. If you play 4 6-max tables, that's 20 other players. Live there's typically only 7-8 others. It's not a crazy task to keep track of 12 more players, but certainly there's gotta be particular things to look for to streamline the process. Notes facilitate a lot as live you have to keep everything stored in your head.

The issue I see with just about all discussion of online hands on 2+2 is that our entire theory and approach is based on HUD, so if poker is ever fully legalized across the US, all of us American players will be left with our pants at our ankles and helpless with regard to a HUDless environment. Sure many winning players in HUD environment will still win at HUD-less environments like you said, but we should be discussing strategy for that sort of a setting if we want to truly capitalize on that sort of an environment

I know, I wanted in on the debate that's why I posted

I guess overall I feel really comfortable moving into a HUD-less environment. I can play on Intertops and Bovada right now, at my stakes, multitable say 4 on Bovada and 8 more on Intertops, not take a single note or have a HUD pretending theyre all really bad players not even paying attention myself and do just fine. The fishiness of the games allows this, so I'm not worried one bit, it will be great for everyone involved. The only thing I take note of is the other few regs names which I make some adjustments on, but I don't need a HUD for that either, just a name. (Bovada, can't obv.)

Of course you can try and pay attention and take notes, but playing that many tables it's nearly impossible so I'd rather not expend my energy trying but focus on playing just a solid game fundamentally and the money will take care of itself.

To those who want to continue into a detailed discussion on ideal winning strategy on online poker sites that do not allow HUDs, here is the thread I created for it:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...hread-1375622/

Winning Bovadians are ideal contributors to this discussion

Why would there be no HUDs?

I'm quite sure there would be HUDs. It's only a Nevada law vaguely forbidding them.

yes