Jump to content


Realistic Bb/100 8 Tabling 2/4 On Pp?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 econ_tim

econ_tim

    forum explorer

  • Members
  • 4,901 posts
  • Location:uncharted waters

Posted 04 April 2006 - 01:44 PM

just to be clear, 4BB/100 means you're winning 4 big bets ($16) per 100 hands played.i know it is possible to run well for 50k hands or more and have a winrate like this, but i have never seen credible statistics over a large sample of hands (100k or more) of someone beating 2/4 or higher for this rate playing one table of full ring, let alone playing 8 tables simultaneously.
%error452% object ::signature:: not found


#42 WonderfulSplash

WonderfulSplash

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 788 posts

Posted 04 April 2006 - 05:57 PM

View PostEgarim, on Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 8:41 AM, said:

Because making 4bb's/100 is very doable over an extended period of time.
That is absolutely absurd at any limit over micros when 8 tabling.

#43 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 04 April 2006 - 07:24 PM

View PostWonderfulSplash, on Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 9:57 PM, said:

That is absolutely absurd at any limit over micros when 8 tabling.
I'd say 4 BB/100 at micros is just as absurd over a big enough sample.
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#44 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,267 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 April 2006 - 07:33 PM

View PostZach6668, on Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 11:24 PM, said:

I'd say 4 BB/100 at micros is just as absurd over a big enough sample.
i disagree. not at the current tightness of Party 0.5/1, but at most micros, i think 4-5bb/100 is not unreasonable.at the old party, i averaged better than 5 playing 3-4 tables over a decently large sample, but the games were very loose when i was doing that.
Long signatures are really annoying.

#45 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 04 April 2006 - 08:41 PM

View Postmrdannyg, on Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 11:33 PM, said:

i disagree. not at the current tightness of Party 0.5/1, but at most micros, i think 4-5bb/100 is not unreasonable.at the old party, i averaged better than 5 playing 3-4 tables over a decently large sample, but the games were very loose when i was doing that.
I used to think so too, but I'm running 1 BB/100 over my last 12k. Maybe it's just the new Party.I've switched to SNG's anyways. They rock.- Zach
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#46 doubleatrain

doubleatrain

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 564 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 04 April 2006 - 10:23 PM

View PostZach6668, on Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 11:41 PM, said:

I used to think so too, but I'm running 1 BB/100 over my last 12k. Maybe it's just the new Party.I've switched to SNG's anyways. They rock.- Zach
I'm tempted to do the same...I used to play a fair amount and was moderately successful when I did (at least on FTP...on Party I hadn't been able to adapt to the horrible structure). You may have just inspired me to switch it up again.

#47 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 04 April 2006 - 11:18 PM

View Postdoubleatrain, on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 2:23 AM, said:

I'm tempted to do the same...I used to play a fair amount and was moderately successful when I did (at least on FTP...on Party I hadn't been able to adapt to the horrible structure). You may have just inspired me to switch it up again.
The new structure on Party is PURE sexiness.
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#48 CobaltBlue

CobaltBlue

    The Outlier

  • Members
  • 10,379 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royal Palm Beach, FL
  • Favorite Poker Game:Hold 'Em, Crazy Pineapple, 2-7 TD

Posted 05 April 2006 - 01:46 AM

So I'm running at 14 BB/100 at 30/60 after my first two hours. Think that's sustainable? :icon_biggrin:And the sad part is that I only made $300 overall tonight. :glare:My candy machine...20/40 6-max has been a ***** lately. I think it's really a matter of opponents.That is all. I guess I should get a blog. Carry on.

#49 Abbaddabba

Abbaddabba

    breaking even like it's 1999

  • Members
  • 5,225 posts

Posted 05 April 2006 - 02:05 AM

Quote

So I'm running at 14 BB/100 at 30/60 after my first two hours. Think that's sustainable?
50BB/100 at 5/10 for me!*after my first 80 handsPlus a respectable 3.7BB/100 after 7k hands, 4 tabling. :club:

#50 doubleatrain

doubleatrain

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 564 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 05 April 2006 - 06:16 AM

View PostZach6668, on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 2:18 AM, said:

The new structure on Party is PURE sexiness.
Are the SNG players on Party still terrible?

#51 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 05 April 2006 - 01:54 PM

View Postdoubleatrain, on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 6:16 AM, said:

Are the SNG players on Party still terrible?
well...I think they were..thn got better in the Fall of 05...now..suck again.But, then, I'm not that great either. Keeping track though, and playing a few a night..... LHE is for suckers.

#52 amarillotg

amarillotg

    fish out of water

  • Members
  • 1,136 posts
  • Location:a little town called none of your god damn business

Posted 05 April 2006 - 02:20 PM

View PostActuary, on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 4:54 PM, said:

well...I think they were..thn got better in the Fall of 05...now..suck again.But, then, I'm not that great either. Keeping track though, and playing a few a night..... LHE is for suckers.
yeah, i got tired of the grind and hopped on the sng bandwagon for a while. they are fun as hell but man the variance can be a biatch.
I love a good gambling story. "I was up $8900, the next thing I know I'm blowing a guy for a sandwhich." What? You gotta know when to holdem and know when to foldem ******. - Dave Attell

#53 Actuary

Actuary

    .

  • Members
  • 19,028 posts

Posted 05 April 2006 - 02:24 PM

View Postamarillotg, on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 2:20 PM, said:

yeah, i got tired of the grind and hopped on the sng bandwagon for a while. they are fun as hell but man the variance can be a biatch.
I've heard variance is less with SnG?at least the STT variety.

#54 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,267 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 April 2006 - 03:10 PM

View PostAbbaddabba, on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 6:05 AM, said:

50BB/100 at 5/10 for me!*after my first 80 handsPlus a respectable 3.7BB/100 after 7k hands, 4 tabling. :club:
regarding the Absolute plan - i've checked in on the table availability over the past couple days...in the mornings - a couple full 3/6 and 1/2 tables. NO 2/4 full. one full 6-max.late at nights - same thing - a little better 3/6 and 1/2. no 2/4 full. two full 6-max.afternoons/evenings - a little better of each. most i saw was two full 2/4 games.so i dunno - i'm not comfortable multitabling 5/10, and that's higher than i want to play anyways. im fine at 3/6, but 1/2 could be fine for getting raked hands.i think playing whatever 2/4 available, followed by 3/6 and 1/2 could still work out to a decent rate perhaps.i'm planning on conducting some tests soon - make a deposit and play off one bonus to see how long it takes, # of hands, availability, etc.
Long signatures are really annoying.

#55 spikymarv99

spikymarv99

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 603 posts

Posted 05 April 2006 - 04:45 PM

View Postecon_tim, on Tuesday, April 4th, 2006, 2:44 PM, said:

just to be clear, 4BB/100 means you're winning 4 big bets ($16) per 100 hands played.i know it is possible to run well for 50k hands or more and have a winrate like this, but i have never seen credible statistics over a large sample of hands (100k or more) of someone beating 2/4 or higher for this rate playing one table of full ring, let alone playing 8 tables simultaneously.
There is some guy on 2+2 (has a blog) that is beating the 30-60 and 50-100 games at Party for 3.9BB/100 while playing a minimum of 8 tables. His sample size is well over 500,000 hands. It's possible. Less than a year ago, he was grinding at 2-4. Reach for the stars kids :club:

#56 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,267 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 April 2006 - 05:11 PM

View Postspikymarv99, on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 8:45 PM, said:

There is some guy on 2+2 (has a blog) that is beating the 30-60 and 50-100 games at Party for 3.9BB/100 while playing a minimum of 8 tables. His sample size is well over 500,000 hands. It's possible. Less than a year ago, he was grinding at 2-4. Reach for the stars kids :club:
link to blog?i wouldn't have believed that was possible, including 500K hands at those limits in less than a year.
Long signatures are really annoying.

#57 econ_tim

econ_tim

    forum explorer

  • Members
  • 4,901 posts
  • Location:uncharted waters

Posted 06 April 2006 - 06:26 PM

View Postspikymarv99, on Wednesday, April 5th, 2006, 8:45 PM, said:

There is some guy on 2+2 (has a blog) that is beating the 30-60 and 50-100 games at Party for 3.9BB/100 while playing a minimum of 8 tables. His sample size is well over 500,000 hands. It's possible. Less than a year ago, he was grinding at 2-4. Reach for the stars kids :club:
3.9 < 4
%error452% object ::signature:: not found





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users