What PTBB/100 is good?

[pokerlink]

Hi everyone.

What PTBB/100 is normal, good and great for 100NL? and also 200NL and 400 NL?

I am at 2,5 PTBB/100 at 100NL after 60k hands. Thinking I should aim for 5 PTBB/100 over 50k hands before moving up too 200NL. Is this too carefull?

I play 6 tables and aiming at 45-60k hands per month (right now 30k)

Sorry if this is one of those questions that is asked over and over again. Have searched but cant find any answer.

[Nielsio]

One million dollars.

[kolotoure]

[ QUOTE ]
One hundred billion dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]

[sixhigh]

winrate thread

[syphlix]

[ QUOTE ]

Sorry if this is one of those questions that is asked over and over again. Have searched but cant find any answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

i find that hard to believe...

but yea... at 100NL i'd say 20+BB/100 can certainly be considered great

[KLJ]

all of them

[Fonkey123]

I too want a serious answer. What's reasonable at 1/2 on stars? 5ptbb/100 right?

[KLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
I too want a serious answer. What's reasonable at 1/2 on stars? 5ptbb/100 right?

[/ QUOTE ]

im going to say 4 is the upper limit for all but 2-3 of the stars regs (carrot is one, but i'm not telling who the others are [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). 100k hands was the sample size when we all had 5+ ptbb winrates, now that most winning players are only like 2-3, who knows.

obviously here comes the graph of one of the following:
1. party winrate
2. insignificant sample size
3. unsubstantiated claim

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I too want a serious answer. What's reasonable at 1/2 on stars? 5ptbb/100 right?

[/ QUOTE ]

im going to say 4 is the upper limit for all but 2-3 of the stars regs (carrot is one, but i'm not telling who the others are [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]). 100k hands was the sample size when we all had 5+ ptbb winrates, now that most winning players are only like 2-3, who knows.

obviously here comes the graph of one of the following:
1. party winrate
2. insignificant sample size
3. unsubstantiated claim

[/ QUOTE ]

stars 200NL is beatable for 5+ for sure, but the vast majority of those who can do it are obv playing higher. the reason winrates are so low in that game is b/c

a) most regs play too many tables
b) most regs dont game select
c) most regs dont put in enough effort to improve their game because they think they are better than they are

[BDaws]

[ QUOTE ]
im going to say 4 is the upper limit for all but 2-3 of the stars regs

[/ QUOTE ]
KLJ,
I don't know what you consider to be an adequate sample size, but over my most recent 129,870 hands at Stars NL200 (all of which are post-legislation) my winrate at NL200 has been 3.91PTBB/100. I do tilt extensively on occasion and I still make very basic mistakes pre and postflop, especially recently in which running bad has had a negative effect on my playing ability and caused me to run at around 2PTBB/100 this month.


I'm fairly positive I'm not in the top 5 at Stars NL200 and I still have around a 4PTBB/100 over a decent sample. I would say 5.5-6 is the upper limit for most players who aren't sick good (so besides Carrot, Clayton, other really good players who could succeed higher if they didn't hate variance).

Thoughts?