6 max and this is NL 200 and 400.

Yes they are which is why I put the PT in front of the bb.

Yes, by default but you can configure PT2 to use bb instead of BB which I used to do because the whole idea of speaking in terms of big bets is stupid to me.

on a slightly unrelated topic, we all should stop using ptbb/100 as our metric imo.

Why? HEM is overtaking PT and the average poker player doesn't know a BB = 2*bb. bb/100 should be the standard imo.

Exactly.

It's interesting that coming from a live background, this is all I've ever measured myself in for the past 20 years, or if not this, then buy-ins per session.

Tracking anything in per 100 hands is the wrong measure IMHO, since if I'm winning 4 whatever per 100 hands and I play 500 hands a week, then wooppe, at $2/4 I'm making $80 or $160 or whatever it is. I understand that you online kids play more than that, but the reasoning is the same. We play the game to make money that we can spend, not to make some multiple of our bets. If you're going to live and die by some bb/100 measurement, you should play $.01/$.02 and find out a way to play 40 tables at a time 24 hours a day, since I assume that metric would be off the charts at that level.

The fact that people move up in stakes proves that it's not just about the winrate per 100 hands - it's about making money that you can go and spend. That is what $ per hour allows you figure, and then allows you to compare your RESULTS to any other activity you could be doing with you time to also make money, like, oh....I don't know......work?

You can't say that a bb/100 hands winrate is the end goal and the money doesn't matter (or "will come") but then also move up in stakes, for one is the enemy of the other. And at the end of the day, whoever has made the most actual money, wins.

Here endeth the philosophy portion of my day.

jaime gold? is that you??

I think they are both viable ways of measuring poker results and while both are incomplete I think BB/100 + stakes played gives a clearer picture than just an hourly. Having said that my hourly is what I am most concerned with and dictates what stakes I play, how many tables, etc.

dangerfish,

I think you hourly would improve if you moved up to $2/4 full time. You results are impressive, and not the norm at any given stakes. Low stakes because it's better to move up, and higher stakes because it becomes more and more difficult to achieve your winrate.

these threads are stupid, and im stupid for posting in it. but gawd 4ptbb/100 is definitely sustainable at 1/2 over very large samples....

4.3 ptBB/100 is good for a 200NL reg. I want to see a decent recent sample of someone doing this at 400NL or higher. Dr Giggy was widely regarded as the top 400NL reg when he played there and he didn't have that winrate.

i would counter this with anyone that doesnt think 4.3ptbb/100 is really high is probably not playing enough tables and is missing out on $x/hour.

and since when did there become 2 ways to say things in ptxx terms? I thought the whole point of using ptbb was to distinguish that you had to multiply it by 2 to get your bb/100. Now people are using PTBB and ptbb? how confusing....


anyway I'd just like to add that i think anything over like 6bb(3ptbb afaik)/100 is pretty damn good for anyone playing like 6+ tables at nl400+

and i highly doubt there are many 2/4 3/6 6 max regs that are making even close to the 4.3ptbb(8.6bb)/100 that ben86 stated as a top tier number. And I would agree that that number is super top of the totem pole over a significant sample.

+1

I don't doubt that, however I do play quite a bit of 2-4 and occasional 3-6 but like I said in my previous post it is not strictly a question of bottom line. There are other factors to consider and without getting too personal I am not at a stage in my life where I can even handle the smallest of downswings.

see this whole $/hr thing tilts me, because yeh you can always add tables, but I really end up feeling like I have to work twice as hard if I have twice as many tables and I get worn out from playing in half the time. It just adds immensely to the stress factor and makes playing a lot less enjoyable (at least for me). So play a zillion tables doesnt really help much and thats why I go by ptbb/100 and not $/hr.

lool.. "hey i win at close to 5ptbb.... LOL at all you 2-3ptbb grinders.

oh by the way I 4 table and bumhunt like craaazy"

I mean If I 1 table and only play in games where I have position on 2 of my favorite fish that I have great reads on I bet I could crush your measly 4.8ptbb.

So if someone is winning 4ptbb in theory at nl200 what would their winrate be at nl400? 3.5ptbb? 3ptbb? 2ptbb?

As a curio question don't you think it's interesting to see how a good nl200 player would cope in a nl1k game? Would they even be a winner?

No, I mean I am not able to win at NL1k. I won 5ptbb/100 over a sample of about 200k Hands at nl200 - won 1.5ptbb/100 over 70k Hands at NL400/500/600 and donked of thousands of $ at NL1k.

And yes, I think it is sustainable to win 5ptbb/100 over a big sample size (over 500k hands) at 1/2.

I dont think anybody in the world has ever known their winrate :-)

Even if you play enough hands to overcome the variance at the same stakes and sites, once you have done so both the games you play and your own game will have changed so much that the data is no longer valid.

You can have a justified belief that you are winning player if you have logged a lot of hands and have reasonable average winrate over those hands, especially if you actually realize why you are winning, but trying to establish whether you are a 2 ptBB/100or 3 PTBB/100 winner makes no sense in my opinion.

That said, if you have made 4,3 PTBB/100 on average playing 200NL over a reasonable sample, you are rolled for 400NL and you feel ready to experience bigger swings without tilting, then I guess you would make more money playing 400NL.

Give it a try :-)

Fwiw I have played more than a million hands of NLHE, with several breakeven stretches of around 50k hands. I still have reasonable average winrate all together, but I am sure I have had at least some weeks in a row where I was playing so badly I was far from beating the game. I dont really think so much about winrates anymore, I just try to play +EV games while being somewhat reasonable with my BRM (note to self). I dont think I can use statistics for that. I have to trust that I am able to identify when I am being outplayed and when I have a good game.

Good post.

Other than that, 4ptbb longterm is amazing and you would be if not the best one of the best regs at msnl if you achieved that. Nanonoko doesn´t even have that at 2-4$ over a 1 million hand sample and closer to 3ptbb at higher stakes.

this thread is nonsense... I mean just look at Kaintd77

wow mbn to run godly for life. Prob more of a testament to how small 220K hand sample is

This is me for the last 11 months or so I believe. There is a slight discrepancy between 3/6 and 5/10, but minimal.

who are you?

Dude it's heads up.