BB/100 Question

Ok, ok! Don't shot me down in flames but I have (probably!) a stupid question).

I'm trying to understand what is meant by BB/100. Now, i believe I'm right in thinking that is is Big Bets won per 100 hands. My question is if I'm playing at 1¢/2¢ tables surely I would need to be at about 4BB/100 just to break even? Is that right...? Assuming that for every 100 hands I will post 11 BBs and 11 SBs totalling 33¢. Therefore 8 BBs would net me 32¢...nearly breakeven? Am I missing something?

BB/100 is your net winnings, which includes the loss you take from posting blinds. So if your BB/100 = 0, you're breaking even.

There's additional confusion about bb/100 and BB/100 and ptbb/100, but we can deal with that later if you're confused about that, too.

Your PTBB/100 number that programs like hold'em manager or poker tracker give you includes blinds you posted and the rake you paid.

HEM including big blinds per 100 as a default stat tilts me

Everyone's used to big bets, why try and switch it up?

That's great - thanks for clearing up the confusion

There's additional confusion about bb/100 and BB/100 and ptbb/100, but we can deal with that later if you're confused about that, too.

Click to expand...

OK, I'll tell you what I think then you can correct me!??

bb/100 = big blinds per 100 hands
BB/100 = Big Bets per 100 hands (twice the big blind)
ptbb/100 - poker tracker big bets per 100 hands (don't know the difference between this and the last one!!)

You've got it.

PTBB/100 and BB/100 are the same. Most of the time if someone says something like, "I'm rocking 4.2bb/100 over the last 32k hands," they still mean big bets per 100.

I hate bb (big blinds) per 100 with a passion, cuz all it did was cause confusion. The standard had been set long long ago with BB/100. Worst stat ever.

Great - thanks for all your help!

Mase31683 said:

I hate bb (big blinds) per 100 with a passion

Click to expand...

I've never heard a bet of $4 in a $1/$2 NLHE game be classified as a big bet. Measuring winrates in big bets is an archaic holdover from limit hold'em, and I much prefer big blinds per 100.

Yeah, I started as a limit player, so that probably adds to my stubbornness, lol.

c9h13no3 said:

I've never heard a bet of $4 in a $1/$2 NLHE game be classified as a big bet. Measuring winrates in big bets is an archaic holdover from limit hold'em, and I much prefer big blinds per 100.

Click to expand...

^ this. bb/100 really does make more sense for NL/PL games but the standard's been set now so I guess we just lump it