| User | Post |
|
1:22 pm
September 28, 2009
|
mullethaiku
| | | |
| Member | posts 84 |
|
|
What is considered a "good" BB/100 figure in general? 4-5 BB/100? Higher?
How many hands would you need for an accurate accessment? 100,000?
I just got Hold'em Manager about a month ago, so not enough hands in to really tell. My BB/100 is all over the place week to week. I'm just looking for an idea of what is considered good numbers, to gauge my progress. Thanks!
Right now, it's showing around 3.5 BB/100, but only about 20,000 hands in….
Thanks
|
|
|
7:00 pm
September 28, 2009
|
JJS
| | | |
| Member | posts 47 |
|
|
Post edited 10:57 am – September 29, 2009 by JJS
It is not at all easy to figure out what your win rate really is, because there is so much variance in poker.
Take the example of Seo Awsum in the book. Even after 1 million hands, there is a plus or minus 2.5 bb/100 uncertainty in his win rate. So his win rate appears to be 6bb/100, but might really be anywhere between 3.5bb/100 at the lower end or 8.5bb/100 at the higher end.
Now this is because his standard deviation is high, at 100bb (or $200)/100 hands. If his SD were only half as much, $100/100, then there would be half as much uncertainty in his win rate (plus or minus 1.25bb/100, or 4.75bb/100 lower to 7.25bb/100 upper).
As for a different number of hands, the uncertainty varies as the square root of the ratio. So for 100,000 hands, do 1 million/100,000 = 10, then take the square root of 10 which is approximately 3. So there is 3 times as much uncertainty. So with a SD of $200/100, Seo's interval is now plus or minus 7.5bb/100 (= 3 x 2.5bb/100). So his win rate is therefore between -1.5bb/100  and 13.5bb/100.
That is quite a lot of variance!
This is why I have said before that a poker professional's life is not an easy one. You either have to start out with a huge bankroll, or live as frugally as you can while you grow your bankroll as rapidly as possible. Don't be deceived by poker pros who started with a small bankroll and then became successful! They were just lucky.
EDIT: I was off by a factor of two for Seo's original win rate (it's 6bb/100, not 12bb/100) so I fixed that. That's what happens when I make a post like this too late in the evening!
|
|
|
7:18 am
September 29, 2009
|
Russ
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
JJS gave an intelligent post but did not answer the original poster's question. From what I've gathered by talking with other online players, I tend to consider 5 big blinds per 100 hands to be a solid winrate. You can "accurately" say you're a winner when your winrate, standard deviation, and sample size yield a 99% winrate confidence interval that is positive. Here is an excellent link for computing these numbers.
http://www.cc.utah.edu/~lra211…..upoker.htm
That said, realize that everything JJS said regarding winrates is true.
|
|
|
8:08 am
September 29, 2009
|
mullethaiku
| | | |
| Member | posts 84 |
|
|
|
9:31 am
September 29, 2009
|
Rocketfingers
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Just a simple answer
0-4 bb/100 is marginal
4-7 bb/100 is nice
7+ bb/100 is crushing
Also notice that BB/100 is not the same as bb/100.
BB/100 means BigBet/100 hands and BB= 2 big blinds
|
|
|
10:25 am
September 29, 2009
|
mullethaiku
| | | |
| Member | posts 84 |
|
|
I thought bb/100 = 1 big blind/ per 100 hands?? It's really 2 big blinds/ per 100 hands??
So what does the standard "bb/100″ stat on HEM stand for exactly? I'm confused now….
Thanks!
|
|
|
11:26 am
September 29, 2009
|
Rocketfingers
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
mullethaiku said:
I thought bb/100 = 1 big blind/ per 100 hands?? It's really 2 big blinds/ per 100 hands??
So what does the standard "bb/100″ stat on HEM stand for exactly? I'm confused now….
Thanks!
bb/100 = 1 big blind/100 hands thats right, but BB/100= 2 big blind/100
BB means Big Bet or also refered as Poker tracker Big bet (PTBB)
|
|
|
11:49 am
September 29, 2009
|
mullethaiku
| | | |
| Member | posts 84 |
|
|
|
3:48 am
September 30, 2009
|
JJS
| | | |
| Member | posts 47 |
|
|
Post edited 10:49 am – September 30, 2009 by JJS
Russ said:
JJS gave an intelligent post but did not answer the original poster's question.
Well, the OP did ask: "How many hands would you need for an accurate assessment? 100,000?"
So I was addressing the issue of "assessing your win rate".
You generally need way more hands to do that than most people think they need.
For a better discussion about assessing your poker skill, go to Ed's site and read his article "When do I know I'm Awesome?"
|
|
|
5:37 am
September 30, 2009
|
Matt Flynn
| | | |
| Admin
| posts 100 |
|
|
Post edited 12:38 pm – September 30, 2009 by Matt Flynn
Good stuff here. I would add you never know your current win rate, because conditions in poker can change quickly (there is an example of this in the Bankroll chapter).
I think a good bb/100 is whatever can pay your bills. 5bb/100 today over a big sample is a very solid winrate. This is bb not BB: 1bb is $2 in a $1-$2 game. So $10/100 is doing well. There are not many doing this btw.
Oh and one standard deviation doesn't tell the whole story. You can run awesome in big pots for a few 100,000 hands and have a mighty win rate even if your "true" winrate is mediocre.
|
|
|
7:18 am
September 30, 2009
|
mullethaiku
| | | |
| Member | posts 84 |
|
|
Thanks for the info guys! I figured it was not an exact science by any stretch but this really helps. I really just wanted to gauge my process as I increase my number of hands.
|
|
|
8:15 pm
October 1, 2009
|
shtStirrer
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Post edited 3:20 am – October 2, 2009 by shtStirrer
Post edited 3:48 am – October 2, 2009 by shtStirrer
Win rates are overrated. People tend to obsess over them too much. You can play well and lose money, and you can play like shit and win.
Instead of asking what your win rate is, try asking how good are you at minimizing your losses, and maximizing your wins.
It sounds really obvious. Duh.
Analyze your hands. That will be the key.
Poker has too much variance, for anyone to claim to have won this much or lost that amount. Not without providing more information.
Sixty four squares.. sixty four squares, baby!
|
|
|
3:09 am
October 2, 2009
|
Pok Fu
| | | |
| Member | posts 4 |
|
|
+1 shtStirrer
There's no way you can play enough hands to achieve some theoretical statistical confidence while playing the same game over this sample to make it relevant.
Do some thourough check of your game every 5k hands, spend time reviewing sessions, be honest about what you're doing well and what you're not doing so well, that's the key.
I'm beginning to have good reads but I suck at table management and tilt control. I'm writing it down everyday; I still suck at these skills, but I'm getting a little bit less awful each tilme 
|
|
|
12:20 pm
October 25, 2009
|
Ichiro
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
anything in the black is good. If you look at pokertableratings.com, you will find that there aren't many players who make over 1 bb/100 hands.
There are many players who claim there win rate is higher and when they're outed, they say that site forgot to track the stage when they were running hot lol
|
|
Login 
Register 
Search 
Forum
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
