I have a direct question.

If a player is crushing NL500 ZOOM with a winrate of 12bb/100 over a huge sample then what winrate I can be expecting of this same player at nl100 ZOOM ?

500/100=5

500nl wr = 12

5*12= 60

60bb/100 if my math checks out? might be a little less because rake is higher at 100nl

Seems legit.

Given y = mx + b,
m = (12-60)/(500-100) = -48/400 = -.12.
60 = -.12*100 + b = -12 + b. -> b = 72

So y = -.12x+72 = 0
-> x = 72/.12 = 600.

So guy would be breakeven at 600nl and losing at all higher stakes. He should stay at 500nl imo.

probably less than 12, noone has a wr of 12 at 500zoom with a recent sample though.

is this huge sample like..TEN THOUSAND hands perhaps?

I doubt it, TEN THOUSAND sounds likes a big number.

I'm surprised by your anwer. What make you think this?


Just suppose you have 10 Million hands on a villain winning for 12bb/100 at nl500 ZOOM for instance.

You're a cube.

There is quite possibly no one at zoom 500 with a winrate higher then 5.

This.

Also, if there was a player who actually had a real wr of 12bb/100 @ 500zoom. I'd be almost certain his wr at 100nl wouldn't be higher than 20bb/100. Mostly because :

1) The rake at 100z is much higher so it eats more into your edge
2) A 12bb/100 winrate indicates that this player is playing very well against both regs and fish, and probably exploiting them a ton. In order to have a higher winrate, he needs to be exploit people even more. But the fish at 500z and 100z are the same, so he's not exploiting the fish any more at 100z, meaning his increase in bb/100 would have to come from exploiting regs more. Now the 100z regs are obviously quite a bit worse than the 500z regs, but it's not like he can massively exploit them a ton more. The 100nl zoom reg pool does have a better fish:reg ratio though so this crusher would make some more monies from fish.

For those who think nobody crush the field for a winrate above 5.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=856

This guy crushes the field for 10bb/100.


Anyway, good post 'Dr.FatCat'. I like your reasoning.

That is 2 years ago. He posted the graph in 2013 and the graph itself goes back go the end of 2012.

And it happens to be otb_redbaron which means he isnt belonging in zoom500. More like zoom5000. Everyone that crush z500 move on/higher eventually and that besides the games being ridic tough is also a reason you wont find crushers in that magnitude.

I don't get the logic that the true crushers can't count. By that logic no one can have a big winrate, because if they do we have to assume they are on the way up right?

haha wrong, but clearly nobody at 12

"people" and I say there isnt one crushing like baron did because noone is. there isnt samples. Redbaron only played it for a while to regain confidence. So he was just slumming it up in the 500z for a bit. Im not arguing its not possible to sustain 10bb/100 im saying noone in the pool today is because the ones capable move up, its just that easy imo. There is games above and someone capable of crushing 500z for 10bb/100 are so ****ing advanced pokermind that i put it close to zero chance he is NOT moving up because hes scurred

Then we also have what i pointed out in the post earlier, it was almost 2 years ago. I do not know if he could do it again, perhaps.

TouchOfEvil.

There are known winners above 5 and even winning 10bb/100 nowadays at nl500Zoom (not the baron) and they aren't moving up because they don't like the bumhunting stuff going on at normal tables. These guys just play Zoom now and nl500 is the higher limit running in this format so it's okay to assume they won't move up.

The otb_redbaron graph was 350k hands, hardly a relevant sample (It tells us that he's doing really well in those games, but not that 10bb/100 is sustainable, I'd need to see a 1M+ sample for the winrate to be actually "accurate")

Can you tell us the SN's and/or show graphs of these people winning at 10bb/100 please ? I'll ship you 25$ on Stars for a proof of someone winning at 10bb+/100 over 1M hands at 500z. There's a guy in PGC forum that has like a 5bb/100 we @500z over a 500k hand sample or something, but there's seriously like less than 5 people who have a 5bb+/100 wr over 500k+ hands. I've yet to see any graph for 5bb+/100 for a million hands.

Even over a million hands with a 5bb/100 winrate, the 95% confidence interval is 3bb/100 to 7bb/100. Especially considering the relatively "large" player pool at 500z, you can't really say someone is crushing it for 5-10bb/100 without a veeeeery large sample. Chances are that while they are indeed a good player, winrates between 5-10bb/100 are most likely anomalies (I said most likely, I wouldn't be extremely surprised if someone did win at 6-7bb/100 or whatever at a true winrate, but as others said, he wouldn't be playing 500z because he'd be good enough to play 50/100+ and make more monies.)

I don't have a graph with this sample for you unfortunately but I know there are people winning for at least 8bb/100. You don't need to be a wizard to know this anyway. You think the baron is the only guy out there killing?

Now if you don't believe the baron can sustain his 10bb/100 over 1M hands then we can't argue anymore because I don't really think you're gonna find ever someone showing you 1M hands graph. I believe the baron can easily sustain these 10bb/100(he was super confident when he started the mini challengue first of all).

EDIT : can you link me a graph of these 5 guys who are killing the field for over 500k+ hands or show me a graph ? I may ship you some money if you show me this.

Very good post

Sent from my GT-I9300 using 2+2 Forums

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't redbaron's EV winrate in that graph 5bb/100? 100k over 400k hands, 25cents a hand or 25 bucks/100 hands, which is 5bb.

I'm pretty sure I'm correct, though I'm sure I could find a ton of people who say their w/r is over 5 and they are just running bad or w/e.

I don't think you understood me. I said "but there's seriously like less than 5 people who have a 5bb+/100 wr over 500k+ hands". I'm saying these people maybe exist, maybe they don't. I say if there are winners of 5bb+/100, there's probably less than 5 of them, meaning it's possible there aren't any. You are the one saying these people exist, yet without any proof.

Please tell me the SN's of the people winning at 8bb/100 (over a non-lol sample), you can PM them to me if you don't want to post them in public.

Can you give us a list please?

It's pointless to say names in this thread
I won't say names, stop asking.

But they are "known winners even winning 10bb/100 at 500nl zoom", apparently according to you, so if they are known publicly why not give an example?

Unless, of course, they don't exist or lack proof to their claim.