200NL BB/100

[the_main]

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if I could make a better hourly rate at NL100. My winrate was MUCH higher there over a MUCH smaller sample.

Anyhow, I havn't done any number cruching, but I wonder how much extra value you get from FPPs while playing 200NL instead of 100.

Anyone have a clue? (assume 1fpp=$.015)

[Belok]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if I could make a better hourly rate at NL100. My winrate was MUCH higher there over a MUCH smaller sample.

Anyhow, I havn't done any number cruching, but I wonder how much extra value you get from FPPs while playing 200NL instead of 100.

Anyone have a clue? (assume 1fpp=$.015)

[/ QUOTE ]

40% fpps/hands at 100NL
60% fpps/hands at 200NL

Fairly big difference...but not enough to justify the +2x variance and tougher players.

[1p0kerboy]

D-

First let me dispute your "round # theory". Fish flock to different levels depending on what they can afford to lose. Obviously this is why you can expect to see the majority at the lower levels. Picture a triangle if you will. But the reason I don't believe your theory is because most fish don't even buy in for the maximum. They don't even know what NL100 is.

In order for it to be in your best interest to play 200NL, your winrate only need be at least half of what it is at 100NL.

Also are you sure you are making the proper adjustments against better opponents?

[Mr_Donktastic]

I truly believe that 1000nl is where rich degenerates and people taking desperate shots go.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
people taking desperate shots

[/ QUOTE ]

This wouldn't happen to include you would it? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[1p0kerboy]

If 1000NL is that fishy, maybe we should all just pool our money together and one of us 4-table it.

[Mr_Donktastic]

No, lol. I meant more like people who just blew their whole br on some dumb [censored] and have like $400 left and want to double up real quick.

My shot was a calculated risk, obv...I'm a professional [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Fonkey123]

Yeah when I was on super monkey tilt the play at 1k NL was terrible.

[Hince]

I don't know how you guys play that tight...

[MotorBoatingSOB]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, the way these #s look, it seems like 100NL is more profitable than 200NL...even in terms of $/hr.

A friend of mine beats 100NL for 7-8ptbb/100 over a huge sample (500k+ hands). My WR at 100 has hovered between 3 and 4ptbb/100 over the last 200k or so...but I'm really not trying as hard as I should... Even the best of the best at 200NL dont seem to make more than 4ptbb...

God i miss partypoker [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. There are people out there who 12-table 100NL and win at > 4ptbb/100. This is probably a slightly higher hourly rate than the 1.6-1.7ptbb that you 200nl people are posting, although rakeback may make a difference since it will be somewhat higher at 200nl. Also you will need a much smaller roll for nl100.