What's a good winning rate?

Monkeybonkers

Was reading through the Poker Guide sticky and came across the link about poker sites being rigged. Was having a read through it and it was saying that winning 2-3 BB (I presume this means big blinds) per 100 hands was crushing a game. Is this true? Seems like a small enough win rate to me. If that's the case I may even try online play again myself, bots or not!
Is this a winning rate or did I pick something up wrong?

Slash/ED

BB means Big Bet, which is twice a big blind, it's a limit term that just got used to measure online NL winrates for some reason. So 3BB/100 in 6 big blinds per 100 hands.

As for it being a good winrate, depends on the level you're at really. For the micro's it'd be pretty bad for example.

Monkeybonkers

I was thinking that it seemed very low, especially at the micro limits. Even as a big bet it's still pretty low. Thanks, I won't bother going back to play online so.

corkie123

Slash/ED wrote: »

BB means Big Bet, which is twice a big blind, it's a limit term that just got used to measure online NL winrates for some reason. So 3BB/100 in 6 big blinds per 100 hands.

As for it being a good winrate, depends on the level you're at really. For the micro's it'd be pretty bad for example.

any rate over minus is a good rate :rolleyes:

the whole year inn

Double post

the whole year inn

corkie123 wrote: »

any rate over minus is a good rate :rolleyes:

eh 0

zuutroy

>0

dougee19

gob_smacked wrote: »

eh 0

i'd take that

DeadMoney

Monkeybonkers wrote: »

I was thinking that it seemed very low, especially at the micro limits. Even as a big bet it's still pretty low. Thanks, I won't bother going back to play online so.

lol, would it still make a difference if bb's = BB's? Games would still be just as tough to beat. At micros people can boast win rates of +12BB/100 or so over decent enough samples. At mid stakes you are pretty much crushing when you are winning 5BB/100+ over a good sample I think. Maybe I could be corrected here, I'm not sure. Then at the high stakes, it gets smaller for obvious reasons. For example at the highest stakes of limit holdem, the biggest winners like stoxtrader and Bryce beat the game for like 0.8BB/100 over very large samples.

Still good for millions of dollars in profit of course.

Treehouse72

Discussion of winrates is still stuck in a 2006 timewarp IMO.

Fact of the matter is that in todays games at the pro and semi-pro levels (let's say 50NL and up) any winrate in the green is good. Assuming of course that your sample is big enough and your SD doesn't point to trouble down the line.

I was looking at Poker Table Rankings the other day. The site covers FTP, PS and Cereus I believe (maybe a couple more). You can filter it to see the top winrates at various levels. Checking 100NL (my current stakes cause I suck too much to last at 200NL), several of those on the list have winrates below 2BB/100. My understanding is that the list is of the TOP winners and is not just a sample of random wr's. Therefore, we can only assume that if you have a wr of 2BB/100, that makes you one of the top guys in your stakes.

At the other end of the scale there are a couple of dozen guys making 5BB+ over decent samples. Several are 7+. These guys are presumably all those 2+2 child-geniuses and hot Swedish aggroTAGS. The guys who are looking to be at 5/10 sooner or later.

I will say I know PTR is a bit hit and miss, but I still think it gives a good broad outline. And looking at it in Summer 09, I come to the conclusion that any wr is good.

HiCloy

Don't think about winrate, it's all about $/hour including rakeback etc

hotspur

Treehouse72 wrote: »

At the other end of the scale there are a couple of dozen guys making 5BB+ over decent samples. Several are 7+. These guys are presumably all those 2+2 child-geniuses and hot Swedish aggroTAGS. The guys who are looking to be at 5/10 sooner or later.

Um 2 tablers versus 16 tablers imo. Playing at 5bb at 4 tables is retarded if you can get 2bb on 16.

Rb

It wasn't so long ago that 4PTBB/100 was considered merely standard...:/

Monkeybonkers

All this is quite interesting. When I was playing micro-limits (0.01/0.02) I estimate I was making at least 2-3BB per 100 hands. I didn't keep any records or anything like that though to see what the actual rate was. Also I know that our brain remembers wins and not losses so this is probably not 100% accurate either. But at micro limits this was just so boring! I always ended up entering a tourney with the money I had spent hours grinding away to earn and that was the end of that. Found out then about bots so gave up online play. I was always only a casual player anyway so didn't really bother me. I suppose you would have to put in a lot of hours to make any money and I just wouldn't have the will to do that. I like to play poker but online micro-stakes is just soul destroying. Interesting replies though, thanks.

Treehouse72

hotspur wrote: »

Um 2 tablers versus 16 tablers imo. Playing at 5bb at 4 tables is retarded if you can get 2bb on 16.

Um, what? We're talking about winrate, not $/hr. Two different things. The reason the former is more interesting is because it relates to poker skill and not just your grinding ability. The winrates I quoted say nothing about number of tables played. The filter I used was for this year and the average sample and winrate of the 30 or so players on the list was 301k/4.17. It is silent on tables played so the question is moot and doesn't matter.

Moreover, a winrate of 1.01/600k hands looks to be the lowest of these "Top" wr for 100NL*, which is what leads me to surmise that any wr's means you could get on this list of "Top" winners. Here's the link (you need to register to use the tool):

http://www.pokertableratings.com/top-winners-year/0.5-1-nl

Also, I know the word "retarded" is fashionable among our US teenage friends over on 2+2, but it just sounds nasty here.


ED: * Actually, I'm wrong here - one guy has a .97 wr over 600k.

opr

The point i think HS is trying to make Treehouse is that the guys who are the biggest winners show up as only making 2bb because the people who win the most $ wise are the 16/24 table grinders but this in turn means they have a low bb/100.

People playing these stakes maybe six tabling are beating the stakes for much better bb/100 but the guys 16/24 tabling still show up as the biggest winners overall.

Also why do you take it as a personal attack upon yourself anytime someone dares comment on one of your posts ?

Opr

Treehouse72

opr wrote: »

Also why do you take it as a personal attack upon yourself anytime someone dares comment on one of your posts ?

Opr

I accept this as a fair criticism. HS writing "Um..." in his post and using the word "retarded" kinda bugged me though. But apologies - I don't want to be hateful here.

On your main point, I still think you are muddled about winrates v. money won, but I have to think about it for a while because it is very possible I am the one who is muddled, not you.

Wolves

Treehouse72 wrote: »

On your main point, I still think you are muddled about winrates v. money won, but I have to think about it for a while because it is very possible I am the one who is muddled, not you.

Yes you are. His post makes perfect sense.