My win rate at the $200's 6 max is PTBB 8.79PTBB but was a slight loser at the $100's 6 max (positive only once bonuses were added in).
I found a big difference in skill between the $50's and $100's and no difference at all between the $100's and $200's (in fact I find reading players easier at the $200's).
A big jump in my game came about 2 weeks ago was when I realised that so many players donk push any draw that (a) it's great +EV to call them down once you have noted them as 'all-in draw donks' and (b) as other folks have learned to read all-in pushes as a donk on a draw it is massively +EV just to push on any drawing flop when you hit a made straight, set (or if you are short-stacked even 2 pair) on the flop esp in EP...you avoid the bad beats caused by slower play, worries about scare cards on turn/river and only need to get called once in while to make the all in push best EV..
Statistics: Posted by excession — Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:31 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
My actual PTBB/100 in the 10k hands since I started playing $100 NL 6 max is lousy (maybe 2 or so). It wasn't helped by a top set over middle set loss of my doubled up stack last night
But of course with the +5PTBB from the bonuses it's still a safe enough way to build up.
By comparison my long-term win rate across all sites at $50 Full Ring over 50k+ hands was in double figures.
My depleted rate at the mo' is a combination of lack of discipline, lack of experience in 6 max and just some bad luck I think...
Still so long as my roll is creeping up and I'm getting more exerience of 6 max I'm happy enough..
Statistics: Posted by excession — Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:33 am
]]>
A winrate to me isn't so much per hour as per bet or ROI. I'm playing mostly SNGs so that's what I know, kinda. My ITM is higher at $10 than $30, but my ROI is higher at the higher limit. I lose more often, but win more money. That's why I stated that a winrate at $50 is not sustainable at $200, but the ROI might be higher.
I really wish Alex would start that new topic so I could be the fly on the wall between you two. I'd like to learn more about this subject.
RE: 2+2 and completely off topic.
I agree with everything you said about those guys, but when it comes to the math part, there is no equal to that site. They are damn good at the math part. Fortunately for me, poker isn't all math.
I use them, much like I use a calculator, since I'm not very good at math. Sometimes they really are full of chit. I agree. Sometimes, however, they are right. As long as you practice caveat emptor, you're on the right track, as far as poker advice is concerned.With the 1table Tournament Forum, half their advice is right on, and half is nuts. It's the half that's right on is exactly where I'm weakest. Their push-bot style is ridiculous, but why they do it is not. Their insistence on playing Party is ridiculous, but their reasons are not. $/hr. They may be better than me, pre-flop, because they are slaves to the percentages, but not post flop, because they have no feel for the game. They play Party because they win more with their bot mindset, playing more games/hr. They'd be less successful at Pokerstars because you have to actually play more with more chips. The Encyclopedia has a place. Subtlety is not one of those places.
At least, that's my opinion. They'd, of course, have all kinds of numbers and charts that would disprove it.
CJ
Statistics: Posted by Cactus Jack — Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:06 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
I do love Ed Miller's articles on bankroll management though.
Anyway, I had a sustaining win rate of over $56 an hour playing 2.8 tables of $200NL. It's defiently possible for $50/hr.
Statistics: Posted by kennyg — Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:23 pm
]]>
First, I've been spending too much time on 2+2. Second, I wish you continued success.
I believe the guys at 2+2 would tell you a win rate at 50 is not sustainable at 200. Maybe with more experience, your win rate would climb at 200, but in the beginning, it's not sustainable. There are simply fewer bad players at the higher level and more players at least as good as you are. However, half the win rate would give you approximately double the money, theoretically, assuming you are thinking winning percentages, etc. If you are thinking amount of dollars won, then it may be sustainable.
The guys at 2+2 think in terms of $/hr, which is really the best way to think of winning because it's comparable across all ranges.
But then, I'm not much of a math guy, so I could be thinking wrongly. Regardless, I encourage anyone and everyone to follow their star.
CJ
Statistics: Posted by Cactus Jack — Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:20 am
]]>
I was just making numbers with a friend of mine and the money has given the game a whole new perspective. If I can sustain my win rate of NL$50 at NL$200 and play the same amount of hands (3-4 hours a day three tabling) I could do more than 5K or even 6K a month. That is a lot of Dominican Pesos
.Good thing is that I have almost the bankroll to play NL$200 and the proper win rate at NL$50 to play NL$100.
I think it´s worth to make the sacrifice and not take money out until it s good money (whatever that is for you) or even untill you reach a game where you are struggling to beat. I´ve read that all poker player gets to a level he simply cant win. If that level is NL$400 and you need to stay at the $200 tables, you would be having a decent, above average income.
Statistics: Posted by AlexMR — Sat Oct 01, 2005 6:32 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>