is 6 bb per 100 hands good profit?

[Stu_Ungar]

30k hands would be a good sample size to determine if your winrate is sustainable.

To put that figure in perspective.. People often report playing 4.5K hands in a day multi-tabling.

 

[blankoblanco]

man, this thread reminds me how much easier the games used to be

30k hands would be a good sample size to determine if your winrate is sustainable.

it's really not, to be honest. 30k hands is usually a decent sample for figuring out if you're likely a winning player or a losing player at a limit, but not something to accurately base your winrate off of. to get even close to knowing your winrate, i think you'd probably want 100k hands minimum, 200k would be much better though. since a lot of players move up in limits before they've even played that many, and since the games are constantly changing, having a grasp on your "true" bb/100 at any given time is pretty tough to do imo

a lot of great players have had 30k (and larger) breakeven stretches when it's clearly not indicative of their winrate

bottom line is you should always assume your bb/100, whatever it is, can be improved, that you can improve your game, but if you're steadily winning money over tens of thousands of hands that's pretty good

 

[Chris_TC]

after 20k hands at 1c/2c i was running at 10BB(20bb)/100 so it is sustainable.

after 2k hands at 5c/10c im running at 7.5BB(15bb)/100 and im playing only a slightly adjusted game. So even a small jump in stakes my winrate has been largely efeected.

20K hands is not a meaningful sample size by a long shot. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but if you want even 95% confidence after 20K hands @ 10BB, your true winrate will be somewhere between 1BB and 19BB or something.

 

[JaBone30]

man, this thread reminds me how much easier the games used to be



it's really not, to be honest. 30k hands is usually a decent sample for figuring out if you're likely a winning player or a losing player at a limit, but not something to accurately base your winrate off of. to get even close to knowing your winrate, i think you'd probably want 100k hands minimum, 200k would be much better though. since a lot of players move up in limits before they've even played that many, and since the games are constantly changing, having a grasp on your "true" bb/100 at any given time is pretty tough to do imo

a lot of great players have had 30k (and larger) breakeven stretches when it's clearly not indicative of their winrate

bottom line is you should always assume your bb/100, whatever it is, can be improved, that you can improve your game, but if you're steadily winning money over tens of thousands of hands that's pretty good

Combuboom you never let me down with your insite. I couldnt agree more with what is said here and would really like to pick your brain sometime.