How many BB/100 hand is considered good at NL 100?

How many BB/100 hand is considered good at NL 100?

1000 is good.

LOL

5?

Depends on how many tables you're playing I guess.

Anyone over 1 is good, trust me. 5 is excellent.

imo anything over 3 is extremely solid. 5+ long-term and you'd be probably one of the top winners in the game.

so x/BB should be higher at lower limits if you are a good player?

or is 3-5 good for any limit over longterm....

Yes.

This brings up the inevitable question:

"How many bb/100 would Jesus make?"

I say 27.23bb/100

There are two conflicting effects when you go up. On one hand you face stronger and stronger players on average, but on the other hand you pay less and less rake in BB/100 terms because rake is typically capped at $2 or $3/hand.

ok just wondering...I'm at 4/100 BB for about 9k hands

Always good to be on the + side.

I only played about 6k hands at 10nl before moving up, but i ran at 9/100. Could have been a heater, of course.

Maybe just fold AK preflop all the time and your winning rate will skyrocket? (see November chat thread comment)

Im about 5bb/28k hands @ 100nl, so im pretty much crushing it atm then? Good to know.

wouldn't that be a good indication that you're ready to move up?

what does it mean BB/100 hands?

big bets per 100 hands, it's how you historically measure results in limit games. For no limit games, it means 2 big blinds per 100 hands. So if you earn 5BB/100 at 100NL where the big blind is $1, you earn $10/100 hands.

Anything under a 50k hand sample is just variance imo

Actually, even with 50k hands you could still be a few BB/100 from your true win rate, imo.

fwiw, i play around 30k hands per month, and that's enough to more or less ensure i don't loose money on any given month, but i can still end up with 0 or with 5BB/100 profits over a 30 days period. How much is the variance of the cards and how much is the variations in how good i play i really don't know.

(Ha, thought I was starting a new thread- obviously referring to the statements above)

I was reading a forum today about bb/100 (big blinds per 100 hands-earning 6 bb/100 hands being very good apparently). This is not the question though.

They talked about how playing multiple tables will effect your earning ratio when calculating your profits. Their examples were, 5bb/100 playing one table will differ then playing 4 tables.

Am I totally missing something here when I say playing multiple tables creates NO variance when calculating your bb/100? I mean how I figure it, playing multiple tables is effecting TIME not hand ratio. One argument may be that different limits effect it but even if you were playing 1/2NLand 10/20NL the ratio will still be identical. For example: if you get 6bb/100 at 1/2NL and 4bb/100 at 10/20NL your still getting 5bb/100 hands. If you play 4 tables all 1/2NL you simply add all your hands up at the end and calculate the bb accordingly. The amount you made over TIME will be the only difference. Now did I just dig myself a big hole or am I making sense? I say again, playing multiple tables does not effect your bb/100 hands, you just need to calculate your bb/100 differently. Please explain it to me like a child if I am wrong.

Thanks
Hope to hear back soon.

what you're missing is that when you play more table, you give less attention to each individual hand/decision and therefore your edge over the competition decreases a little.

If you can play just as well playing many tables as you do playing one, then indeed your bb/100 is not affected whatsoever.

I'm not sure if this helps but my pokertracker database shows that the ave BB/100 for all the winning players with more than 1000 hands is about 7BB/100. I would say 10 is fantastic.

this is an old thread

lol. So it is. 10BB/100 is still good.

To know your "True Winrate" really takes a lot of time.

Take your BB/100
Confidence Level
Standard Deviation BB/100
Number of Hands

With these you can find you "True Winrate Range" which is a normal distribution

Confidence Level just means how sure you can be that your true winrate is in the given distribution.

As an example, the person I saw describing this had:
Winrate: 6.5 BB/100
Confidence Level: 95%
Standard Deviation: 75 (You can find this in tracking software, he's HU so Std D is bigger)
# hands: 150,000

This gave the following numbers:

True Winrate range: 3.79 BB/100

Low Winrate 2.70
Hi Winrate 10.29

So there's a 95% chance that he wins anywhere from 2.7 to 10.3 BB/100. That's still fairly wide and this is after 150,000 hands!

Now let's take a look at how the number of hands played affects these numbers.

Adjusting # hands to 10,000 yields a true winrate range of 14.7, which is basically saying, there's no idea in this how well you're playing. You are just as likely to have a true winrate of -6.7BB/100 as +22.7BB/100 at this point.

Don't worry so much about what your BB/100 is. Just focus on playing well, and making good decisions, because variance is going to be there for quite some time.

I had 4.5 PTBB/100 at NL100 (~25K hands). Only 3 PTBB/100 at NL200. But I'm a FL player. I play NL only ocassionally. A good NL player can have more than 5 PTBB/100 at NL100 for sure. However anything above 0 is good.

yeah way easier to have a higher winrate in nl

Yeah, I think BelgoSuisse hit it right on when he said playing multiple tables effects your bb/100 because of the simple fact your not playing to your fullest potential having so many games going at once. I'm wondering why I never thought of that... should have know. It makes perfect sense I guess I was just looking past the obvious and looking for something deeper, some calculation varience or something.

Thanks again