QUESTION: When are you "beating" a stakes level?

Stick66

Stick66

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Total posts
6,374
Chips
0
When I see people post a sentence that includes "beating XXX NL", I wonder at what point is it widely considered that one is "beating" a stakes level.

- Is it based on a certain percentage of winning sessions over a certain period of time?

- Is it based on a certain amount of profit? Number of buy-ins won? BB or bb per 100 hands? per hour? per day? per month?

- Or is it just "winning" and not "losing" or "breaking even"? If your profit is +$.01, are you "beating" your stakes level?

I could be beating my stakes level and not even know it. Opinions, please.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
IMO, for cash games, beating a stakes level would mean the following.

1) A sustained profit, shown in terms of BB/100 over a minimum of 10,000 hands.

2) The cash value of that profit must be greater than the cash value of the profit earned at tthe previous level.

This allows you to judge your level of play and factor in for your style of play. So although as your BB/100 may (probably will) decrease as the stakes increase, the cash value of BB/100 should still be increasing.

Another way of saying this is if you earned more at a lower level then you cannot be considered to be beating the higher level.
 
F

feitr

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Total posts
1,570
Chips
0
- Is it based on a certain percentage of winning sessions over a certain period of time?

- Is it based on a certain amount of profit? Number of buy-ins won? BB or bb per 100 hands? per hour? per day? per month?

# winning/losing sessions is completely irrelevant. Your BB/100 is equivalent to your $$/hour when you adjust for your hands/hr, $$/day (hours/day*$$/hour), and month and buy-ins won (50BB = buy in). And so it is just used to gauge how well you are "beating" a level.

As for number of hands, I'd say you need probably 30k, unless you are crushing the level and not running extremely hot. It then depends on factors such as number of tables you are playing (more tables = less win rate/100 normally but your $$/hr might be more since your hands/hr is more).

If you are able to say run at 3BB/100 at 500 hands/hr, you are probably beating a level fairly well. It depends on stakes, however, because to beat 0.10/0.25 or 0.25/50 for 3BB/100 means that there is a large room for improvement, because these levels are chock full of very poor players. Whereas if you were beating 2/4 for 3BB/100 you are doing extremely well indeed.

But ultimately it doesn't really matter if you are "beating" a level or not. Try to find a level where you can handle the swings and have a decent win rate.

Ultimately, the ONLY thing that matters at the end of the day is $$/hr (ie. BB/hr). So if you get 1000 hands/hr in at 2BB/100, you are doing a better job than if you were winning at 10BB/100 while only playing 150 hands/hr.
 
odinscott

odinscott

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Total posts
1,055
Chips
0
for me beating a level is winning, even if it is only a small ammount

crushing is obv winning alot lol
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
I would say anything positive over say 50K hands. If it's close say .5BB/100 you may still be a long-term loser but you should be close after a 50K sample.
 
Jagsti

Jagsti

I'm sweet enough!
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Total posts
5,478
Chips
0
Pretty much what Feitr said.
 
masonman88

masonman88

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Total posts
816
Awards
4
Chips
0
beating levels

Well reading this tells me I need to learn so much more about the ins and outs of this game POKER.. I will just keep reading
 
drewbabez

drewbabez

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Total posts
19
Chips
0
I go mainly by how many buy-ins you have for whatever limit you're playing. If you go from having 50 buy-ins to 70-80 buy-ins in a few months, I'd say your beating the game. Of course if your not making any profit your obviously not beating the game.
 
R

Ricky747

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Total posts
23
Chips
0
I'm wondering this myself. I'm comfortable on $1 SNGs, but -- as was pointed out to me -- the $2 ones have a much less brutal rake/fee. So is the level of competition appreciably different there? I haven't played enough hands to know my ROI.
 
C

Cobryn

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Total posts
327
Chips
0
I'm wondering this myself. I'm comfortable on $1 SNGs, but -- as was pointed out to me -- the $2 ones have a much less brutal rake/fee. So is the level of competition appreciably different there? I haven't played enough hands to know my ROI.

No. The level of competition between 1$ and 2$ sngs is not appreciably different. Same players.
 
Crummy

Crummy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Total posts
1,840
Chips
0
IMO I would say if you can sit down at a $x/$x table and show a profit consistently, then you are beating that level. I’m not meaning that you are winning a couple bucks here, losing some, then winning that back, but rather sitting down winning, leaving the table, coming back another day winning ect.
For example, you start out with $20 and are playing a .10/.20 table, two months later you have $5,000 in your account, I would say you are beating .10/.20 stakes and could move up in stakes. (Just an example, no real math or calculations)
 
Steveg1976

Steveg1976

...
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
2,516
Awards
1
Chips
0
IMO I would say if you can sit down at a $x/$x table and show a profit consistently, then you are beating that level. I’m not meaning that you are winning a couple bucks here, losing some, then winning that back, but rather sitting down winning, leaving the table, coming back another day winning ect.
For example, you start out with $20 and are playing a .10/.20 table, two months later you have $5,000 in your account, I would say you are beating .10/.20 stakes and could move up in stakes. (Just an example, no real math or calculations)

The only problem with this is it doesn't account for variance. Time does need to be allowed to rule out "hot streaks" where it is possible to win enough to move up very quickly but not be actually good enough to beat the level you were at let alone move up. That is why people advocate a minimum # of hands at a level.
 
Crummy

Crummy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Total posts
1,840
Chips
0
I see your point, you could win just as much money in 200 hands as you can in 20000 hands.
 
Top