|
|
#42
10-17-2007, 08:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 ] tbh dj, you just run really good. 
|
|
#43
10-17-2007, 09:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100
In all seriousness, I think consistently winning at 3 PTBB/100 over many hundreds of thousands of hands is a "good" win rate. Better than that is "very good".
Like someone else said, Seabeast is the only one who has posted proof of winning at 6-7 over a large sample. That obviously is outstanding. I see a lot of people say "if I dropped back to x tables tables at x stakes then this win rate SHOULD be sustainable", and no disrespect to those posters, but not many have posted proof of actually doing it over large samples.
|
|
#44
10-17-2007, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100
i think there are a lot of interesting answers given.
BB/100 seems to decrease as more table you play, which means observing other players increases BB/100 but its obviously not so important at mid levels to make money in the long run. i cant imagine how a player can focus on each player , playing on 10 tables only looking at poker tracking software.
|
|
#45
10-17-2007, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100
[ QUOTE ]
i think there are a lot of interesting answers given. BB/100 seems to decrease as more table you play, which means observing other players increases BB/100 but its obviously not so important at mid levels to make money in the long run. i cant imagine how a player can focus on each player , playing on 10 tables only looking at poker tracking software. [/ QUOTE ] I appreciate the honesty, because no matter how hard I work at multitabling I am not going to notice indivisuals tendencies when 6+tabling. I just assume most 6+ tablers go off standard reads and PT stats and images of regulars.
|
|
#46
10-17-2007, 07:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] well, I think a big part of it is personal preference, and obviously mine is for fewer tables and higher stakes (within appropriate bankroll and such, of course). But I also think that you can play much better on a small number of tables, and it will also further your development as a player because you've got more time to analyze things as they happen and figure out the future ramifications of them. Your game can evolve in real-time, as opposed to during a 12-table grind when I think its pretty hard to change anything until between sessions. But I could be wrong on that, as I rarely play any more than say, 8 tables (6, really). I certainly play some sessions where i'm grinding it out at 6 tables, but I think mixing in sessions of 1-3 tables is very good for your game and your sanity. Especially if they're soft tables!
|
|
#47
10-17-2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] tbh dj, you just run really good. [/ QUOTE ] all the more reason to play higher stakes, wooooo!
|
|
#48
10-17-2007, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100
[ QUOTE ]
well, I think a big part of it is personal preference, and obviously mine is for fewer tables and higher stakes (within appropriate bankroll and such, of course). But I also think that you can play much better on a small number of tables, and it will also further your development as a player because you've got more time to analyze things as they happen and figure out the future ramifications of them. Your game can evolve in real-time, as opposed to during a 12-table grind when I think its pretty hard to change anything until between sessions. But I could be wrong on that, as I rarely play any more than say, 8 tables (6, really). I certainly play some sessions where i'm grinding it out at 6 tables, but I think mixing in sessions of 1-3 tables is very good for your game and your sanity. Especially if they're soft tables! [/ QUOTE ] good post, I agree 100%
|
|
#50
10-17-2007, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: BB/100
While I understand the "grind more tables, less variance, yada" arguments, I have only heard it from people who haven't successfully moved up. I have never heard a successful HSNLer say, "meh, Id rather 12 table 2/4 forever because...etc." That said, I do get it, and it is more appropriate for some people.
FWIW, I play 4-8 tables.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
