Sustaining a 31BB/100 Winrate at NL - I'm Doing It

[jdd12]

How about we try to remind you what you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
That's 3,000,000/100 times 30 BB/100 times $2 (a BB at .5/1) equals $1,800,000.


[/ QUOTE ]

Gary's post is simply saying that the statement quoted above, made by you, is wrong.

To quote the OP:
[ QUOTE ]
This is on a sample of 13400 hands

[/ QUOTE ]

To summarize: 13,400 <> 3,000,000

[fish2plus2]

not enough hands played at 14k.

[Evan Evans]

The last 11,500 Hands:


I'm going on vacation in 30 mins, I'll try to respond to all the "good" repliers while im on it. Talk to you then.

Evan Evans

[Gonso]

Just to be fair, to make sure we all understand everything you've said (there is some confusion)... here's a quick review of what you're claiming -and my own personal reaction to them, speaking only for myself- please correct where applicable:

1) Overall, you've played 3 million hands.

Three million hands is difficult, but not at all impossible. If you are 4-tabling at 60 hands/hr each table, for 60 hours per week, every week for four years you should get to 3 million hands. So, ok.

2) You've tried out a half dozen systems during that time.

Fine.

3) You now have a system that is yielding you a sustainable 31BB/100.

While this is very possible in the short term, this is pretty far out of the realm of reasonable even at the low limits. That doesn't make it absolutely impossible, of course - but to me this is like saying a given NFL QB can sustain a career average (over, say, a decade) of maybe 6 TD passes per game. Possible, sure, but extraordinarily unlikely.

4) You only have 13.5k hands to base this assumption on.

Your sample size is obviously far too small to establish anything remotely close to your long-term winrate. Since this data isn’t enough, on what did you base your assumption that the 30BB/100 rate was sustainable?

5) You forsee a 16/BB winrate at 50k hands.

Errr.... what? You "forsee" 16BB/100 at 50k hands? Huh? You were just claiming 30BB/100 to be sustainable - so why the drop to 16BB in your estimate? If you can't sustain 30BB then how is 30BB/100 sustainable?!? Also, while 50k hands is an improvement, the sample size could use a little more work.

6) You ain't spilling the beans on this system.

This makes your post useless in addition to suspicious. Why post? Did you expect people were all going to sit around and say, wow, you're amazing? We wish we all could be like you? Seriously.

7) This applies to low limit NLHE.

This is where you're at after 3 million hands played at all different limits? Back to low limit NLHE? Do you see why a reasonable person would find this astoundingly retarded?

8) You are an expert at this game.

See answer to #7 - and #9 as well.

9) You understand variance.

I suspect that you don't. A quick browse through your other posts reveals that your command of some basic (and immediately related) mathematical concepts found in poker come up a little short. For example, you opened a thread because you had not been dealt a pair of aces in X hands on a given poker site. You were not able to determine, on your own, the probability of that event occuring.

. . . .

You are getting the feedback you are getting because of the considerations above.

[Gary Stevenson]

[ QUOTE ]
"I figured out a system of play, after playing 3 million hands of poker and creating about 6 different strategy systems, that yields about 30BB/100 as a winrate at the low stakes levels (25c/50c - $1/2) NL."

System, in this case, is referring to a strategy he is using. Such as, raising x range of hands or whatever he thinks is working. It still claims he PLAYED 3M hands with about a 30BB/100 winrate. This is clearly stating he PLAYED those hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes you idiot, he played 3m hands, he did not say he had a 30BB/100 winrate over those 3m hands though...it's not that hard to figure this out

[ QUOTE ]
Please try again and convince why he didn't play 3M hands when it says "...after playing 3 million hands.."

[/ QUOTE ]
I was never trying to convince you that he didn't play 3m hands, i said he didn't claim to win 30BB/100 over those 3m hands he played, only over the last 13k.

[DonkBluffer]

AM I BEING LEVELED BY AN ENTIRE FORUM?

bizzaro world

[Jshuttlesworth]

Little Luck,
Are you from a country that uses English as its first language?

[Bantam222]

playmoney?

[Evan Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
I averaged about 20BB/hr in a .50/$1 home game with terrible opposition over the course of a full year. But against reasonable opposition, this is impossible. 16BB/100 is a pretty lofty goal. Good luck. If you're not going to present the system for discussion, though, doesn't this belong in BBV?

[/ QUOTE ]Yeah they moved it here. Considering I am dealing with some theories that I developed that are proving incredibly potent and profitable, I cannot divulge the strategies/theories at hand. Besides my students, whom I pointed to this thread to follow, are screaming at me not to let anyone here know about it. I know that sucks, but it definitely makes it a BBV post at this point. I'm ok with that. But I am looking for some constructive discusson, not here to toot my horn at all.

Yeah I think the game you were in sounds pretty juicy. Kudos for finding it and exploiting it. I hope it was fun. Thanks for letting me know it's possible to get over 10BB/100 at NL. What stakes were you playing?

Evan Evans

[Murakawa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome...

[/ QUOTE ]



GENIUS!