BB/100
 

what do you think is a good BB/100 winning rate for a good NL middle limit player on average??

Re: BB/100
 

400 babies

Re: BB/100
 

all of them

Re: BB/100
 

-0.2PTBB

Re: BB/100
 

3-4 would be pretty darn good if u 6+ table

lol this is prob gonna be the only post that won't be making fun of u

Re: BB/100
 

no problem as far as i am on the winning side ...

Re: BB/100
 

6

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
6

[/ QUOTE ]

6 is pretty [censored] good in this day and age. Seabeast is the only person I've seen post proof of running @ 6 while multitabling over a large sample (I consider multitabling 10+ tables). I'm sure there are a couple others but they're few and far between. 4 is very solid for 12 tabling.

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
I consider multitabling 10+ tables

[/ QUOTE ]

haha

what are your thoughts on polygamy?

Re: BB/100
 

yeah i was loling at multi tabling being defined at 10+ tables too. jesus god man. i know plenty of people do it, but i don't think its at all standard.

Re: BB/100
 

10+ tabling is not standard for midstakes cash game play. also if you have a 6+ winrate 10 tabling, you are a midstakes god... to answer the original question, if you can have a winrate between 2-4 you are doing well.

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider multitabling 10+ tables

[/ QUOTE ]

haha

what are your thoughts on polygamy?

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
yeah i was loling at multi tabling being defined at 10+ tables too. jesus god man. i know plenty of people do it, but i don't think its at all standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. how many tables do most of you guys play these days, I still play 11-12, my MT ratio is above 9.5, I thought that was still pretty much the norm....

Re: BB/100
 

1) I want to see a 450K sample of someone running at 6ptbb 10 tabling or it's not possible.
2) people move up before then
3) is it possible though?
4) yeah, I'll bet you I could do it.
5) ok I'll need an escrow, and it would have to be big enough to be worth my while
6) f that. Who cares.

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]

lol. how many tables do most of you guys play these days, I still play 11-12, my MT ratio is above 9.5, I thought that was still pretty much the norm....

[/ QUOTE ]

it isn't and never has been.

Re: BB/100
 

abreu vnh

Re: BB/100
 

could start a new thread to ask on the average multi table ratio for good winning poker players (4BB/100) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
abreu vnh

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: BB/100
 

1.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
abreu vnh

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

2. 4-6, if you are asking this you should be happy with 2-4 though

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

lol. how many tables do most of you guys play these days, I still play 11-12, my MT ratio is above 9.5, I thought that was still pretty much the norm....

[/ QUOTE ]

it isn't and never has been.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sure thought it was back on party when the games were softer and everyone was running @ 6+....

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6

[/ QUOTE ]

6 is pretty [censored] good in this day and age. Seabeast is the only person I've seen post proof of running @ 6 while multitabling over a large sample (I consider multitabling 10+ tables). I'm sure there are a couple others but they're few and far between. 4 is very solid for 12 tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

12 tabling seems like a bad idea. Also, I have 5.7ptbb over 100k hands w/n lsat 4 months. 6 is def doable

Re: BB/100
 

yeah my last 60k hands at 5/10 have been 5.1ptbb playing 8-11 tables. Pretty sure if I cut down to 6 tables and played 2-4 or 3-6 6-7pt/bb per hundred would be sustainable.

Re: BB/100
 

i think my last 100k hands at 5-10 my wr is like .18

Re: BB/100
 

I would be more interested in getting a poll of how many tables people play? I feel like I can keep track of how each player plays with 2 tables and thats it. If I am 3+ tables then I have to go with lines that should be optimal based on a player's PAHUD/pt stats. Comments?

Re: BB/100
 

8 tables is my maximum. but i also play on sites with [censored]/fast software.

Re: BB/100
 

SO with 8 tables you make plays soley based on PTstats and regulars' images? I am not expected to notice how seat 2 on table 7 is playing right?

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
-0.2PTBB

[/ QUOTE ]

winna

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
SO with 8 tables you make plays soley based on PTstats and regulars' images? I am not expected to notice how seat 2 on table 7 is playing right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are supposed to notice this. Maybe you wouldn't have as good of a read as you would if you were only 4-8 tabling, but you're definitely still supposed to have reads....

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6

[/ QUOTE ]

6 is pretty [censored] good in this day and age. Seabeast is the only person I've seen post proof of running @ 6 while multitabling over a large sample (I consider multitabling 10+ tables). I'm sure there are a couple others but they're few and far between. 4 is very solid for 12 tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

12 tabling seems like a bad idea. Also, I have 5.7ptbb over 100k hands w/n lsat 4 months. 6 is def doable

[/ QUOTE ]

12 tabling is where it's @!!! No, seriously though, maybe I'm more concerned w/ my hourly than my ptbb/100, idk if that's a good thing/bad thing, whatever.... I honestly thought most everyone who was playing for a living in midstakes was playing 10+ tables. I stand corrected

Re: BB/100
 

im pretty sure i could maintain 6 at 2/4 4-6 tabling over a large sample...don't want to stay at 2/4 long enough to find out though.

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I consider multitabling 10+ tables

[/ QUOTE ]

haha

what are your thoughts on polygamy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeti - you always crack me up. I need to ninja-edit my OOT thread response to 3 2+2ers I'd like to meet IRL.

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6

[/ QUOTE ]

6 is pretty [censored] good in this day and age. Seabeast is the only person I've seen post proof of running @ 6 while multitabling over a large sample (I consider multitabling 10+ tables). I'm sure there are a couple others but they're few and far between. 4 is very solid for 12 tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

12 tabling seems like a bad idea. Also, I have 5.7ptbb over 100k hands w/n lsat 4 months. 6 is def doable

[/ QUOTE ]

12 tabling is where it's @!!! No, seriously though, maybe I'm more concerned w/ my hourly than my ptbb/100, idk if that's a good thing/bad thing, whatever.... I honestly thought most everyone who was playing for a living in midstakes was playing 10+ tables. I stand corrected

[/ QUOTE ]

you're a [censored] beast though dude to play the way you do on 12 tables. i cant go over 8 at 2/4 and at 5/10 i will only play more than 6 if aquama is playing more than 6

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) I want to see a 450K sample of someone running at 6ptbb 10 tabling or it's not possible.
2) people move up before then
3) is it possible though?
4) yeah, I'll bet you I could do it.
5) ok I'll need an escrow, and it would have to be big enough to be worth my while
6) f that. Who cares.

[/ QUOTE ]
if u were winning that good, youd move up way before 400K hands

Re: BB/100
 

same fdoc, i can play 8 when i'm comfortable with the game and 6 if not.

Re: BB/100
 

multitabling is played out, playing 4 or less tables and just [censored] on people is where its at now.

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
multitabling is played out, playing 4 or less tables and just [censored] on people is where its at now.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, no. I'd much rather 12 table and run @ 4 than 4 table and run @ 7, at least @ my level....

Re: BB/100
 

i wish i was able to 12 table at 4ptbb, thats sick.

Re: BB/100
 

hunting gambler-whales on a few tables of 10/20+ is wayyy better than multitable grinding msnl against 4 2+2 TAGLAG clones and 1 30/8/1 "fish". winrate is better, too, but it'll mainly make you enjoy life more.

Re: BB/100
 

i wish i was able to 12 table period
i play 4 tables and my career winrate NL200+ is 6ptbb/100. thats only over around 150k hands though, i moved to NL not that long ago

Re: BB/100
 

[ QUOTE ]
hunting gambler-whales on a few tables of 10/20+ is wayyy better than multitable grinding msnl against 4 2+2 TAGLAG clones and 1 30/8/1 "fish". winrate is better, too, but it'll mainly make you enjoy life more.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok, here's my thinking on it: I have the same amount of money in play if I'm 12 tabling the 2/4 or if I'm 2-3 tabling the 10/20. The caliber of player @ the 2/4 is much lower than it is @ the 10/20. 12 tabling the 2/4 the long run gets here much faster than it would playing maybe what, 20k hands/month @ the 10/20? I don't forsee running above 4ptbb/100 @ the 10/20+ certainly. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion a great deal as a poster here which is why I'm trying to figure out where I'm wrong. If I was beating the 25/50 it'd be a different story, but I just feel as if playing so few hands would lead to a # of breakeven months along the way, no? I mean even w/ a 3.5-4ptbb/100 winrate over a large sample (hundreds of thousands of hands) I've gone on MANY 20k hand breakeven stretches along the way.

That being said, I'm going on vacation for the next 11 days and will only have my laptop, so I'll be 6 tabling the 3/6 and the 5/10 here and there, we'll see how that works out. Maybe I'll run good, move up, and then I'll be the whale @ the 10/20 and you'l get to take all my money, lol.

Re: BB/100
 

i dunno
i've seen some pretty awful 10/20 tables