ChuckTs & Zachvac talk fpps and $/hr

Mostly zach crunching the numbers, but I thought this would be good info for a reference thread or something:

(1:34:35 PM) zach: just saw you'd taken a shot at 200nl, interested on your opinion on the difference of 100 -> 200nl
(2:08:43 PM) Taylor: still there?
(2:08:47 PM) zach: yeah
(2:09:20 PM) zach: read your blog entry about 200nl
(2:09:27 PM) zach: just kinda curious as to the difference
(2:09:34 PM) Taylor: answered your question in my thread:
(2:09:35 PM) Taylor: question from zach:

Quote: how would you say 200nl is different from 100nl? Is it just more regs and more aggression/moves, similar to the 50-100nl difference? I'm considering taking a shot in the next month or so at 200nl as well. Well I only really have 1k hands done at 200nl, and they were played during the VPP week, so I probably can't give an accurate assessment as to how different it is. From what I experienced, an average of like %70 of the players were a mix of regs (8/7 through like 18/14), and the rest were fishy. The regs are definitely better, probably a good chunk of them have experience at higher limits and at 6max or heads up, so naturally they're more aggressive. fwiw I think I can beat the games right now, but I'm waiting for my bankroll to catch up.

Just take a shot 4-tabling or something, even if you're only just rolled, or slightly underrolled. The competition isn't like unbeatable or anything, and you'll get a nice feel for what it's like. Just don't do like I did and get laggro and start 3betting light and 4bet bluffing :/
(2:10:12 PM) zach: ah ok
(2:10:21 PM) zach: yeah I just cracked 4k
(2:10:24 PM) zach: so technically I'm rolled
(2:10:36 PM) zach: not sure if I'll take a shot now or wait until 5-6k
(2:10:44 PM) Taylor: yeah definitely
(2:10:52 PM) Taylor: take shots just 4tabling or whatever, see how it is
(2:10:53 PM) zach: and obviously would like 4-6 table first
(2:10:56 PM) Taylor: it's really not hard
(2:10:59 PM) zach: wouldn't go all crazy and try 20-tabling a new level lol
(2:11:04 PM) Taylor: lol
(2:11:49 PM) Taylor: you'll definitely have to exercise better table selection though...I'm really not sure 12-tabling is going to be all that profitable - it might be better to maintain 6-9 'good' tables and not bother with the others...
(2:12:07 PM) zach: are the regs that good?
(2:12:17 PM) zach: like honestly at 100nl even the regs aren't amazing
(2:12:32 PM) Taylor: yeah, they're pretty bad reallly....
(2:12:51 PM) Taylor: 200nl regs are like the cream of the crop from 100nl, but still aren't that great
(2:13:06 PM) zach: but you don't think the extra tables would be profitable?
(2:13:08 PM) zach: even fpp-wise
(2:13:09 PM) Taylor: again i've only played a couple thousand hands now, so take it with a grain of salt
(2:13:14 PM) zach: right
(2:13:44 PM) Taylor: yeah, maybe...i dunno, it just doesn't seem all that profitable keeping 12 'ok' tables
(2:13:53 PM) Taylor: rather than like 6 good ones...i dunno
(2:14:01 PM) zachl: ok
(2:14:06 PM) zach: also as long as you could keep them straight
(2:14:16 PM) zach: like 6 good 200nl and however many good 100nl could work as well
(2:14:33 PM) Taylor: yea exactly; that's what I've been doing, except like 3 and 6
(2:14:48 PM) zach: ah ok
(2:14:58 PM) zach: I've just heard about 0.5 vpps/hand at $1/$2
(2:15:19 PM) zach: not sure how rake is per hand
(2:15:40 PM) zach: but breaking even is pretty profitable at 0.5 vpps/hand
(2:15:55 PM) Taylor: what would the .5 equate to money-wise?
(2:15:58 PM) zach: even 1 PTBB/100 could win a ton of money
(2:16:12 PM) zach: well at supernova each vpp = 1.5 cents
(2:16:22 PM) zach: platinum it's 1.3 I think
(2:16:40 PM) zach: so at 0.5 that's 75 cents every 100 hands I guess?
(2:16:56 PM) zach: wow maybe it's actually better at 100nl
(2:17:00 PM) zach: in terms of winrate
(2:17:35 PM) zach: or maybe I did the math wrong
(2:17:36 PM) Taylor: maths not adding up for me...
(2:17:44 PM) zach: coulda sworn it was something like $12/1k hands for me at 100nl
(2:17:45 PM) Taylor: isn't it 2x1.3x100?
(2:17:57 PM) zach: oh I did 1.5
(2:17:59 PM) zach: ohhhhhh
(2:18:00 PM) zach: forgot
(2:18:04 PM) zach: vpp != fpp
(2:18:11 PM) zach: bonus is in fpps
(2:18:17 PM) Taylor: right
(2:18:26 PM) zach so at 200nl it'd be $7.50/1k at bronze
(2:18:41 PM) zach: but at platinum it'd be $18.75/1k
(2:18:55 PM) zach: $26.25/1k at sn
(2:19:16 PM) zach: since now I'm playing ~1k hands/hour doing 16-18 tables
(2:19:24 PM) zach that's not a bad hourly rate for breaking even
(2:19:29 PM) zach: and then if you can like win at 1 PTBB/100
(2:19:29 PM) Taylor: that doesn't sound right...
(2:19:37 PM) Taylor: oh n/m for breaking even...i'm getting shit mixed up
(2:19:50 PM) Taylor: so that's strictly 'rakeback' right
(2:19:54 PM) zach: right
(2:20:08 PM) Taylor: not bad at all
(2:20:17 PM) zach: and 1 PTBB/100 is $40/1k hands
(2:20:33 PM) zach: so even if bad table selection left you with only 1 PTBB/100 winrate
(2:20:45 PM) zach: that's $66.25/hour at 1k hands/hour
(2:20:54 PM) Taylor: sssick
(2:20:58 PM) zach: although the problem would be if table selection killed your winrate
(2:20:58 PM) zach: yeah
(2:21:10 PM) zach: only once you get sn though
(2:21:13 PM) zach: you think you'll get that this year?
(2:21:31 PM) zach: yeah I think working full time $50/hour equates to $100k/year
(2:21:33 PM) Taylor: I really don't think it's all that bad...I mean I consider 'bad' tables ones full of regs, but you could probably easily run them just stealing and floating etc
(2:21:51 PM) Taylor: yeah prob get sn this year...I think
(2:22:06 PM) zach: that's sort of my goal for next year
(2:22:16 PM) zach: be sn and be able to beat $1/$2
(2:22:23 PM) zach: I've considered going for sne
(2:22:26 PM) zach: but that would be suicide lol
(2:22:28 PM) Taylor: you dont think you can reach sn this year?
(2:22:37 PM) zach: unless somehow I can get up to 400nl and beat it
(2:22:40 PM) zach: oh
(2:22:42 PM) zach: I definitely will
(2:22:50 PM) zach: I meant then next year I'd be getting the benefits
(2:22:53 PM) zach: 3.5 fpps/vpp
(2:22:54 PM) Taylor: oh
(2:23:04 PM) zach: just gotta keep up like 30k hands/month
(2:23:11 PM) zach: or less at 200nl
(2:23:17 PM) Taylor: easy capeezy
(2:23:38 PM) Taylor: 200nl is going to be fun
(2:23:41 PM) zach: yeah
(2:23:49 PM) zach: searched some 2+2 threads on the differences
(2:23:54 PM) zach: apparently the biggest jump is to 400nl
(2:24:09 PM) zach: well then also to 1knl but that's a ways off lol
(2:24:13 PM) Taylor: not surprised...I feel like that's where you run into legit pros
(2:24:21 PM) zach: yeah it also makes sense too
(2:24:27 PM) zach: considering lots of casual players who play in casinos
(2:24:31 PM) zach: probably play 200nl
(2:24:45 PM) zach: and since according to everyone else, the play there sucks
(2:24:56 PM) zach: even the bad players assume they can beat 200nl online
(2:24:58 PM) zach: and then get raped lol
(2:25:13 PM) Taylor: lol
(2:25:17 PM) zach: but on the other hand lots of money so you'd expect more regs
(2:25:19 PM) zach: so I was just curious
(2:25:21 PM) zach: thanks for the info
(2:25:29 PM) zach: I'll definitely take a shot at it the next few days
(2:25:41 PM) Taylor: yeah man np...definitely do, you'll find it really isn't that intimidating
(2:25:52 PM) zach: that was sort of like 100nl too
(2:25:58 PM) zach: before I started it I was scared to death of it
(2:26:03 PM) zach: figured it was all sharks and I'd get eaten alive
(2:26:06 PM) Taylor: mind if I post this conv.? I think it would definitely make for good info
(2:26:28 PM) Taylor: I know I won't remember the $/hr values of everything we went through lol
(2:26:30 PM) zach: been there like 2 months now I think and now I don't even consider any more than like 5 other players good enough to avoid
(2:26:34 PM) zach: lol
(2:26:40 PM) zach: np you can post it
(2:26:46 PM) zach: anyway I've gotta go now, but thanks
(2:26:49 PM) zach: ttyl
(2:26:52 PM) Taylor: yeah man np, peace

Great commentary, I'm not a big cash game player but when I did play 200nl I don't think that the jump was that great between that and 100nl as well. I've moved on to SNG's by now but I still try to put in a decent amount of hands when I can. Overall, I completely agree with the points you were making Chuck and would recommend it to anybody looking for advice on the subject.

Nice info there. Too bad I don't go over 25NL though, Supernova would be very nice...

The main difference between 100NL and 200NL at Stars is a smaller selection of fish. And the regulars don't suck quite as much, but that's about it.
These days of course, 200NL is a huge nitfest because of the 2x VPP promotion.

Interesting discussion about hourly rates there. I just wanted to throw in that if you're consistently beating 100NL, there's absolutely no reason to assume you'll do only 1 ptbb/100 at 200NL.

I was just pointing out that hopefully after moving up and being there for a short time one would be able to beat the game at AT LEAST 1 PTBB/100. For reference, beating the 200nl game at 1 PTBB/100 and assuming supernova while taking the 0.5 vpps/hand number which I have yet to verify with anyone I trust (it's just been posted on 2+2 apparently), getting the $1500 fpp bonuses and winning at 1 PTBB/100 would net a total of $132.5k/year working full time. Or more realistically for me, just playing 15 hours/week would be $49,687.50. Not bad for a college kid just playing during his free time. And anything over 1 PTBB/100 just adds to it.

Fantastic info, thank you very much.

the biggest difference between 100 and 200nl IME is the prevalence of regs that play much higher limits (like $1k nl). whoever is interested in talking about this can PM me and ill give you my AIM.

Sorry to ask but can I just confirm as I'm not up to scratch with all terminology. Is "1 PTBB/100" mean winning 1 big blind per 100 hands. If so, I understand BB/100 but what is PTBB/100?

whats 200nl ?? $100/$200??

Nice to see im not the only college kid on here mate, but i think college in USA is the same as University in England. You sound like you know your stuff also lol

200NL that these guys are referring to is $1/2NL full ring cash game. $200 buy in.

Oh ryt so tis not that high lol is that $200 min buy in ?
Just read your blog aswell jagsti, some interesting stuff there m8

Nope it's $200 max buy in. Oh and thx btw .

$200nl multi tabling is most definitely a level were one can make a decent living imo, as the above numbers confirm

zach why arnt you taking shots, that is pretty sick if you can break even and make money, you could even loose at like .5ptbb/100 and be even.

take shots ma man!

Dont forget about my question

hahah i just looked above i spose $150,000 is around £75k so thats not too bad for doing something you enjoy aint it!

I forgot about the old multi tabling!

Cheers buddy and no worries bout the blog

Also Custo80 is playing 75/150 by the looks of his blog thats pretty high !!

1PTBB/100, means pokertracker big bet. So if you playing 1/2nl a big bet would be equivalent to $4 afaik .

If you see bb/100, it means big blinds, if you see BB/100 it means big bets.

Thanks Jagsti, but for those of us who haven't yet started with Poker Tracker let me ask you this?

If the goal of ring games is to make 'x' bb's per 100 hands, then, to be considered successful, how many BB's per 100 hands should one make to be happy wither their performance and to be profitable long term. I was getting the impression it is around 5. So if i'm playing .01/.02 I want an average of a 10cent profit per 100 hands, am I only the right track

Cheers btw

Ok, there is no simple answer to this question of 'what is a decent winrate' stuff.

It depends on a variety of things, what limits your playing at, what games your playing, your style of play etc etc.

You will often see players saying 'I beat 50nl for 8ptbb/100 and moved up' they then play 100nl and can't seem to progress or sustain a comparable winrate that they achieved at 50nl say. What sometimes happens is that players just arn't true to themselves. They have made rapid movements up, over smallish hand samples, but they haven't played a relevant sample. What is a relevant sample? Well again this is difficult to say, you can have 20k hand d/swings, 50k break even stretches. In my mind I would put it at something like 50-100k to have a meaningful sample with regards to winrate at a particular level.

Also you will probably find that the further up the limits you go, your winrate decreases, as the level of play becomes much more difficult.

In conclusion, try not to get to carried away with winrates. Move up when you have the roll to do so, and you feel like your beating your current level (you decide what beating means. To me it's greater than 1PTBB/100, but it's definitely a personal thing). Your confidence level will be high, and if you have these factors to your game, then take shots or move up. Don't move up, if your lacking in any 3 of these options, imo.

Sorry for thread hijack .

Thanks Jagsti. Your right about the above, Chuck & Zach, back over to you now

does anyone actually know how to work out vpp/hand without playing for an hour then dividing vpp earnt by hands played?

whats the VPP/hand at 25nl FR?

thanks Chuck

According to the thread Chuck links to, .129 VPP/hand. That's really not much rakeback compared to what you can get on full tilt.

Wow 0.56, I can vouch for the other 2 numbers (50nl and 100nl) being right within 0.01 accuracy for me.

if you put in a bit of volume you can easily get gold star and earn double FPP which equates to .238 FPP/hand or 23.8FPP/100 or 238FPP/1000.

Each FPP can be traded at 1.14c/1FPP so its eraning $2.71 rake back per 1000 hands, I dont know what FTP gives you per 100 but pokerstars is much better for higer volume/stakes plyers.

^^^that does seem like **** all actually.

No, PS only starts to be competitive with Full Tilt's 27% rakeback when you reach supernova or something like that. Which is impossible at 25NL. The only good reason to play at PS at 25NL would be that I think the competition is softer there.

I'll check my pokertracker stats tonight for $/1000 in FT 27% rakeback and will post an update. I think it must be about $5/1000 hands at 25NL.

I thought the rake at FT was a fair bit higher than Stars?

I only have experience with FT rakeback at 25NL and I have averaged just over 1BB/100 each month in RB since I started. So unless your SNE, FT + RB > Stars + FPPs.

I think that's only at 10nl and lower.

do they take a higher rake %?

Only at 10NL where it's double Stars's.

25NL and higher, it's exactly the same as Stars: $.05 per $1 in pot capped at $3.

wrong, it's unless you're SN, not SNE.