|
|
#1
05-11-05, 10:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
your averages at your limit
this is for the limit players out there. I want to know how much u average at a sitting at your level. I know they say your supposed to make 1 BB per hour but thats if your table has some sort of poker knowledge. Seems like most online dont so how much do you take from these guys?
mine-.50/1.00 average about $50 in about 4 hours playing 2-3 tables. . |
|
#2
05-11-05, 10:24 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Brian.
Do you understand what an average is? You have lost more than you have won. Therefore you are losing money, on average. I can believe that you have won $50 in about 4 hours playing 2-3 tables..... Once... or maybe even a bunch of times. But on average you are losing X BB per hour.
__________________
3rd Grade Reading Level! |
|
#3
05-11-05, 10:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
hello
im starting a thread about people averages, dont need to bash me in this thread you do that enough in every other one so stick to subject please. Your not my mom dont care what you believe or what u dont believe, stick to subject. Duh im down really I didnt notice, I was talking about from this buy in that is what im averageing per sitting. Last edited by BrianSwa; 05-11-05 at 10:33 PM. |
|
#9
05-12-05, 03:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sure. But somehow I don't think looking at one's last 3-4 hours of play is a significant sample size.
Talk to me when you hit 1000 hours. Or at least 100. |
|
#13
05-12-05, 10:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The 1 bb/hr figure is for middle limits (10/20 - 60/120) live, and even that is a sliding scale, starting with about 1.25 at 10/20 and being about 0.75 at 60/120. Below 10/20 live 1.5 - 2 bb/hr is very doable. Online 3.5 bb/100 is more the benchmark for a winning player over the long run.
Just be sure you're not deceiving yourself about what the long run is. I was averaging 7 bb/100 2-tabling 2/4 for a 12,000 hand stretch last year before I switched back to mainly SNG's. I am under no illusion that I can expect that rate of return in perpetuity. |
|
#14
05-12-05, 10:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Brian. 2bb/hr doesn't mean that you expect to win that every winning session. It means that after 130,000 hands or so of 2-tabling .50/1.00, if you've played 1,000 hours and are +$2,000, you are averaging 2 bb/hr.
|
|
#15
05-12-05, 01:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Higher limits/lower rake %?
Kurn, I'm curious on how you arrived at this. Is the assumption that the higher the limit, the better the players, and hence the lower the earn rate? If I understand correctly, with each jump up in limits the percentage you are paying in rake goes down. So in theory, if the skill level is the same at 10/20 as it is at 20/40 (which is a big assumption), you should actually be able to win at a higher BB per hour rate. Or am I missing something?
|
|
#16
05-12-05, 05:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The higher you go in limits, the better the overall skill level, thus the lower your expectation in bb/time. Sklansky estimates that in the very big games like the $4,000/$8,000 mixed game the best players average less than .25 sb/hr.
This is one reason why many of the better pros (the many you don't hear about) never move up beyond the 60/120 level. At some point, the small increases in expectation don't offset the bigger risk of ruin. For example, let's take a hypothetical player who has the chops to hold his own at the $1,000/$2,000 level for 0.5 sb/hr, but can crush the 80/160 for 1.25 bb/hr. Now. let's further stipulate that he has a $600,000 bankroll (300 bb at $2,000). What makes more sense, making $500/hr with a very real statistical risk of going broke, or making $200/hr with virtually zero risk of ruin? |
|
#17
05-12-05, 06:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Excellent analysis. Thanks, Kurn.
__________________
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
