A Good BB/100 at 100NL FR

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my math kind of sucks but 16days 30.5k hands isn't even close to 4k-6khands a day

[/ QUOTE ]

ya, you're right. i havent played 4-6k hands everyday. i have only started to do that recently, and not with a lot of success, but i am working on trying to discipline myself. you seem very experienced bottomset, what are your other thoughts on my lengthy post?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the man pointe here. Your result of 2-3k hands /day will be much better than your result of 5-6k/hands a day.

It's not easy to keep playing 5/6k hands a day for a long time. Only a fews here got it like Pokerboy amd ect...
Myself I set a goal for myself to moving slowly up. now my goal for this month is 65k hands. If I can make it then I'll increase to 75k hands next months.. My goal will be hit 100k hands/months and 2bb/100 + rb then I'll be happy. It's not there yet but I'm on track of what I'm doing. It'll take time to really tell how far you can go Jimmy... You jump from 2/3k hands/day to 5/6k/hands a days is not easy at all... But gl.

Tofu_boy

[jack21221]

Just curious about the winrates... To be playing 100NL, you should have a bankroll of $2000, and you'll win, if you're a decent player, $4 per 100 hands, which is 2 ptbb/100

With the same bankroll, you'd be qualified for 3/6 limit hold'em, and even at just a 1bb/100 winrate, you're at $6 per 100 hands, which is 50% more.

So, what's the benefit of playing NL over limit?

[GrandMelon]

[ QUOTE ]


So, what's the benefit of playing NL over limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep your sanity

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious about the winrates... To be playing 100NL, you should have a bankroll of $2000, and you'll win, if you're a decent player, $4 per 100 hands, which is 2 ptbb/100

With the same bankroll, you'd be qualified for 3/6 limit hold'em, and even at just a 1bb/100 winrate, you're at $6 per 100 hands, which is 50% more.

So, what's the benefit of playing NL over limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

$2K is not enough of a roll for 3/6 limit. I would say more like $3K.

Right now, I think it's easier to make $4/100 at 100NL than it is to make $6/100 at 3/6 limit. Full ring limit is so dead, and much higher variance.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, I think it's easier to make $4/100 at 100NL than it is to make $6/100 at 3/6 limit. Full ring limit is so dead, and much higher variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[jack21221]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just curious about the winrates... To be playing 100NL, you should have a bankroll of $2000, and you'll win, if you're a decent player, $4 per 100 hands, which is 2 ptbb/100

With the same bankroll, you'd be qualified for 3/6 limit hold'em, and even at just a 1bb/100 winrate, you're at $6 per 100 hands, which is 50% more.

So, what's the benefit of playing NL over limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

$2K is not enough of a roll for 3/6 limit. I would say more like $3K.

Right now, I think it's easier to make $4/100 at 100NL than it is to make $6/100 at 3/6 limit. Full ring limit is so dead, and much higher variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you go by the 300BB "rule," 1800 is enough for 3/6, that's all I was going by.

I appreciate the answer, and it does make sense, so I'll take your word for it. That, of course, makes me wonder why anybody would play 3/6 limit then, if it's hard to make even 1bb per 100.

I wouldn't know, highest limit full ring game I've ever played was a 1/2, if you don't count my 600 hands taking a shot at 2/4

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
If you go by the 300BB "rule,"

[/ QUOTE ]

its not 2004 anymore, 500bb downswings are common nowadays

[swearengen13]

Never make conclusions too soon without a decent samplesize
I would say at least 500k hands at the same limit.
For example: if i have 100k hands and i play ONE losing session of 6 buy-ins, my winrate goes way down!