Win rates / # of tables

[HighOctane]

Part 1
What is a realistic win rate per level (10NL – 200NL) expressed in big blinds per 100? I have heard 6PTBB/100 is a good benchmark for a winning player (12 big blinds / 100?) I am wondering if this is accurate and how it might need to be adjusted by limit.

Part 2
Is it possible to play good poker on more than 4 tables over a large sample. I am wondering what most of the posters play in terms of number of tables (by limit). I am assuming it is easier to play 8 tables at 10NL than 4 tables at 200NL.

[Mr_Pathetic]

[ QUOTE ]
Part 1
What is a realistic win rate per level (10NL – 200NL) expressed in big blinds per 100? I have heard 6PTBB/100 is a good benchmark for a winning player (12 big blinds / 100?) I am wondering if this is accurate and how it might need to be adjusted by limit.

Part 2
Is it possible to play good poker on more than 4 tables over a large sample. I am wondering what most of the posters play in terms of number of tables (by limit). I am assuming it is easier to play 8 tables at 10NL than 4 tables at 200NL.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you are somethingHighOctane on stars stop being a nit should help. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] A good winrate to me is anything over five. Keep in mind some people do much better at NL10-NL50 then say NL100+ while others don't do well at NL10-NL50 an do better at NL100+. I quit worrying about winrates, pokerevgraphs etc this month and I am concentrating on making the most out of every situation I am confronted with and so far it has been a great way to approach playing. Tilt has been reduced greatly.

I personally think over four and you stop learning and get robotic. If you read some BBV stats of some huge winners their MT ratio is never that high. Ikestoys for example is 2.92. He plays 2-4 tables tops. Sbrugby mentioned in an interview linked in NVG that his threshold is 4. Key to playing lots of tables is being able to pay attention to hands you are not in that get to showdown while keeping up with the action in the hands you are in. Hands that go to showdown tell alot about the players and this information is gold.

[thing85]

In the past few months, I've generally 9 tabled 50NL. I've had some success (maybe 5PTBB/100) but a recent downswing (~18 buy-ins, ouch) has prompted me to cut down on the amount of tables to about 5-6. I find that I'm thinking about each individual situation much better than when I 9-tabled, and over a small sample size, I think I'm seeing a decent improvement in my win rate.

It's amazing how many little mistakes you make playing a lot of tables, and they certainly add up. Forgetting to c-bet because you forgot you made a PFR, getting to the river and forgetting all the action that happened throughout the hand - these things ultimately take a toll on your win rate. I think it's still possible to play winning ABC poker on 9-12 tables, but you definitely miss out on marginal value spots and make mistakes that seem insignificant, but add up. I think it's nearly impossible to ever remember your table image or how you played your last hand vs. a random player when you're on 9-12 tables, up against 54-72 players at once.

With comfort and experience, however, I think playing 4-6 tables of winning poker is definitely possible.

[hennnerz]

lol. It is definitely possible to play "good" poker on over 4 tables for a large sample.

Moreover 8 tabling you can defo still "improve". However any more tables imo it varies from player to player. Despite this you can be a 12-tabling hudbot and still improve from doing rudimentary things like session analysis and using 2p2 effectively.

However i would like to see some winrates.... it has been said that it is unlikely that there are many with high winrates (4PTBB+) over significant samples (50k+) because thats $2k and with the starting BR for NL50 say, easily enough to move up stakes.

I will probably clock around 60k hands total at NL50 before moving up due to my circumstances and thus far, 30k hands I am running around 3PTBB and that features a large downswing.

[hennnerz]

[ QUOTE ]
lol. It is definitely possible to play "good" poker on over 4 tables for a large sample.

Moreover 8 tabling you can defo still "improve". However any more tables imo it varies from player to player. Despite this you can be a 12-tabling hudbot and still improve from doing rudimentary things like session analysis and using 2p2 effectively.

However i would like to see some winrates.... it has been said that it is unlikely that there are many with high winrates (4PTBB+) over significant samples (50k+) because thats $2k and with the starting BR for NL50 say, easily enough to move up stakes.

I will probably clock around 60k hands total at NL50 before moving up due to my circumstances and thus far, 30k hands I am running around 3PTBB and that features a large downswing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bump

[mookboi]

Why did you bump this?
IMO this whole thing should be in microbrew.
Every week there's a thread asking about winrates at micro stakes & how much a person could hypothetically make. All of this is irrelevant because if OP has to ask they probably don't play that much poker, and therefore couldn't win that much to begin with.

[hennnerz]

Yeah, exactly. Its really rare people post winrates over large samples. It will stay that way if every thread drops off the pages.

[mookboi]

There's a results/graphs thread at end of every month. Usually on the 30th or 31st.

[hennnerz]

I want to see significant samples.

[Hail Eris]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to see significant samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I know what a significant sample is anymore. Last year I beat NL50 for 6PTBB/100 over 100k hands. I had to cash out almost all of my roll, and now I'm rotting at 25NL with < 3PTBB/100 over 60k hands.