BB/100 ratings...and PT stats

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]
then you get those who think that anyone who doesn't play a squillion tables doesn't do so only because they suck - and then you get the posts that are just plain silly...

[/ QUOTE ]

That was never the point I was making. I was just pointing out that there are clear reasons indicating that OP is not as good as he says. Namely that his sample size is 10,000 hands, he three tables, and he thinks his winrate is normal.

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the variance is not going to change. 1,000 hands of 3 tabling verus 1,000 hand of 6 tabling will have the same variance. Although as previously stated your winrate will usually be higher when 3 tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this may be wrong.

If win rate is higher then variance is less especially over same number of hands.

I think I could be wrong too

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. Variance is directly tied to winrate so therefore if you have a 4ptbb/100 winrate 8 tabling you will have more variance than if you were 4 tabling at 6ptbb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Go read a math book. Thanks for posting.

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]
so basically you're saying you rock and we suck so you're the only one who can sustain 14ptbb. and this you base on a 10k hand sample. awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding, ding, ding.

[wpr101]

[ QUOTE ]
this thread....

wow.


also, wpr - almost everything you've said in this thread is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to jump on the bandwagon. Other than the multitabling which I guess you don't agree is a sign that OP may not be that good... what specifically else is stupid?

[luegofuego]

have you even re-read your posts in this thread? you really do come off as a complete moron. as you do in most of your posts. how is a post like "Not true. Go read a math book. Thanks for posting." not being an arrogant douchebag (like you called me in that PM you sent)? especially when you have no clue what you are talking about? ofcourse winrate and variance are correlated. its [censored] basic ssnl stuff.

maybe people wouldnt be arrogant douchebags to you if you didnt behave like you do in this thread and countless others?

[eigenvalue]

Me!

[luegofuego]

haha fun read and more evidence for the good guys:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...ue#Post11383682

[Christophers]

My god wpr101, please just stop posting on these forums.

[rdd110]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So 10bb(bigbets) is actually 20bb(big blinds)

Thank you cowpig. I knew there was something just plain silly going on there.

Is there concensus on what a sustainable winrate in BB/hr?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the difference between "bb" and "BB" is irritatingly confusing, we call poker tracker's "BB" ptbb (poker tracker big bet).

10+ ptbb is probably not sustainable for anyone who is playing for significant money

6+ ptbb is destruction, and only a few people at each level will attain this kind of winrate over a large sample. Someone who is consistently winning 6+ ptbb at any level is probably going to move up in in stakes soon.

4-5 ptbb is what the very strong winners will make

2-3 ptbb is quite impressive for 8+ tablers and a normal winrate for someone who plays a sane number of tables

1-2 ptbb is typical for 8+ tablers, and somewhat marginal for someone who only plays a few tables

0-1 ptbb is marginal

[/ QUOTE ]

An excellent post. Thank you. From what I've read these numbers are accurate for 6-9 tablers. But what about the 3 tablers? Obviously the numbers should be higher...

Also, I originally started this thread to get some feedback on my positional stats. 600 replys later, there were two which kind of addressed me limping too much from the SB but without much explaination or any math and 598 of people yelling at each other...

[rdd110]

Here are my positional stats over this sample...

BUTTON 29/22
1 28/21
2 23/18
3 22/17
BB 19/9
SB 56/18