What's a Winning Win Rate?

[locks1018]

Hi FTP, I wanted to kno what's a sustainable win rate in 6-max games (PTBB/100)? I'm playing NL-100 and about to move up to NL-200 when the bankroll allows (maybe another 7-10 days I guess) how much decrease is expected as you move up in stakes are games are harder and fish are harder to find? What's a decent sample size of hands? Thanks all for your input and feedback. Just trying to set some goals so that I'm not unrealistic.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Decent sample size? 20,000 hands I'd say, though you really have to get a huge sample to see how you're doing in the long run. 6BB/100 is good, 8 is great, and anything over that is killing it. For your bankroll I'd have 10 grand. I'd also say the jump from 100NL to 200NL is really hard.

[JL]

Decent sample size? 20,000 hands I'd say, though you really have to get a huge sample to see how you're doing in the long run. 6BB/100 is good, 8 is great, and anything over that is killing it. For your bankroll I'd have 10 grand. I'd also say the jump from 100NL to 200NL is really hard.

10grand to move to 200NL?
I'd say $4000

[UG]

Decent sample size? 20,000 hands I'd say, though you really have to get a huge sample to see how you're doing in the long run. 6BB/100 is good, 8 is great, and anything over that is killing it. For your bankroll I'd have 10 grand. I'd also say the jump from 100NL to 200NL is really hard.

10grand to move to 200NL?
I'd say $4000

there's nothing wrong with being a BR Baby

EDIT: As for the original post, move up when you feel ready. If you're beating NL100 soundly you will probably be okay at the higher game, but you've got to be able to mentally take the jump. Everybody can spout off advice and tell you move up when you have "x" buy-ins, or whatever, but I don't agree with that. Also, you probably won't keep the same win-rate (it will probably be less, especially if you're at 6-8bb/100 right now), but I know my win-rate at NL200 was a little better than NL100 over 30k hands or so (5 for NL100, 5.6 for NL200). So take that FWIW.

[IowaSkinsFan]

$4000 for 200NL SH is ridiculous.

[UG]

$4000 for 200NL SH is ridiculous.

Not necessarily. If you're only playing one table I'd say that's more than enough, actually. But if you're playing 3-4 tables it's not nearly enough.

I hate how there's supposedly a "standard rule" that people have to follow. It used to be 15, then 20, now what is it, 30? Just play with what you're comfortable at and know that you may have to drop down a level or two if you ever have a 10-buyin downswing (I've had a few).

[Renton]

4k is enough for 1/2 sh if you have a massive winrate (e.g. at least 8ptbb/100), if your are like majority of decent winners (3-6ptbb/100) then you need to go with more. There is a post on 2p2 that says if you have a smallish winrate, 10-20-even 30 buyin downswings aren't only possible, but actually somewhat common.

[UG]

30 buyin downswings aren't only possible, but actually somewhat common.

umm, no. if you want to keep telling yourself that, fine.....but that is wrong, sorry.

[Renton]

30 buyin downswings aren't only possible, but actually somewhat common.

umm, no. if you want to keep telling yourself that, fine.....but that is wrong, sorry.

lol, u missed the

There is a post on 2p2 that says

part of what i said.

Here's the original 2p2 post. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ue#Post8458740

I didn't say whether i believed it or not. And this isn't what i "keep telling" myself.

[UG]

30 buyin downswings aren't only possible, but actually somewhat common.

umm, no. if you want to keep telling yourself that, fine.....but that is wrong, sorry.

lol, u missed the

There is a post on 2p2 that says

part of what i said.

Here's the original 2p2 post. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ue#Post8458740

I didn't say whether i believed it or not. And this isn't what i "keep telling" myself.

just making sure...

ten buy-in downswings happen, fifteen is a little much me thinks (you're probably playing bad). 30 is just straight up ridiculous.

[Renton]

30 is just straight up ridiculous.

According to this excel spreadsheet that a guy on 2p2 created (it allows you to plug in a standard deviation/100 hands and a ptbb/100 hands):


I ran 2.58ptbb/100 at 200nl full ring on party for about 100k hands. Its a fairly decent winrate for full ring. My standard devation was about 40 (im not sure where that stands, but i think its on the low side, which would make sense, considering i was a nit).

Here are some 100k runs of how someone with my rate and deviation might do. I didn't tweak any results here, and I didn't run the simulation over and over until i got interesting graphs, these 5 were picked out of maybe 10 simulations that i ran (so you might say that over a 1000000 hand career this might be how it would go.





Pretty standard, a 10 buyin downswing and a couple of 20-30k breakeven stretches. Very similar to how I actually ran.





Notice the 19 buyin downswing near the beginning.





All i can say about this one is wow. This is pretty much identical to my last 100k hands graph at 100nl six max (not to indicate that im a 3ptbb/100 winner in these games, just establishing a comparison).





This one starts with a 35 buyin downswing, LOL.





Here's another 30 buyin downswing.

[Irisheyes]

I've almost had a 30 buyin downswing. They are def possible and do happen. Though I feel that psychalogical factors are a big influence.

[Fnord]

You also need to consider "tuition" when moving up a level or entering a new player pool. Then consider the times you don't play your best game. Finally, game/table/seat selection factors a lot into this. If I just played tables I could run over, I might never see more than a 5 buy-in downswing.

[Silly String]

$4000 for 200NL SH is ridiculous.

Not necessarily. If you're only playing one table I'd say that's more than enough, actually. But if you're playing 3-4 tables it's not nearly enough.

I believe this is the biggest fallacy in bankroll management. You do not need significantly more bankroll if you multitable than if you play one table at a time. Varience is a function of the number of hands played, not amount of time played. The varience fluctuations will come & go in faster amounts of time if you play more tables, but not any faster or slower in number of hans played i.e. more hands in less time, won't cause greater varience.
The one exception is that you may tilt off more money due to playing more hands poorly while in tilt mode. Tilt usually take an amount of time to get over, not a number of hands.

[Seasider]

$4000 for 200NL SH is ridiculous.

Not necessarily. If you're only playing one table I'd say that's more than enough, actually. But if you're playing 3-4 tables it's not nearly enough.

I believe this is the biggest fallacy in bankroll management. You do not need significantly more bankroll if you multitable than if you play one table at a time. Varience is a function of the number of hands played, not amount of time played. The varience fluctuations will come & go in faster amounts of time if you play more tables, but not any faster or slower in number of hans played i.e. more hands in less time, won't cause greater varience.
The one exception is that you may tilt off more money due to playing more hands poorly while in tilt mode. Tilt usually take an amount of time to get over, not a number of hands.

I agree, but you have to remember that multi-tabling means less reads and that you will be more prone to mistakes, which must be worth a few buy-ins.

Personally my game goes to $h** at 4 tables +

[gabe]

$4000 for 200NL SH is ridiculous.

Not necessarily. If you're only playing one table I'd say that's more than enough, actually. But if you're playing 3-4 tables it's not nearly enough.

I believe this is the biggest fallacy in bankroll management. You do not need significantly more bankroll if you multitable than if you play one table at a time. Varience is a function of the number of hands played, not amount of time played. The varience fluctuations will come & go in faster amounts of time if you play more tables, but not any faster or slower in number of hans played i.e. more hands in less time, won't cause greater varience.
The one exception is that you may tilt off more money due to playing more hands poorly while in tilt mode. Tilt usually take an amount of time to get over, not a number of hands.

the more tables you play, the lower your winrate is, which means more variance, which means bigger br

[LeFou]

Varience is a function of the number of hands played, not amount of time played.

Actually, it's a function of many factors, the most important of which is your playing style. The second-most-important of which is the number of people at the table (because this number affects how many hands you are 'required' to play by the increased effective ante). The third-most-important of which is how closely you approximate perfect play.

This last one suffers bad from multitabling.

The number of hands played, incidentally, is not a factor. Playing 800K hands smooths out variance, but does not make it more or less drastic.

[UG]

technically you're right but a ten buy-in downswing would happen a lot faster with more tables...

you'll also win more.

[Harry]

I plan on taking shots at 200nl at around $5000.

[benny999]

winrates are meaningless for most players because there's so many dynamic factors (improvements in your game, the games you play at, etc). take shots when comfortable and can afford to lose x buyins, focus more on playing in the best games at first, and set a stop loss of the x buyins. I think that's the way to move up.

[IowaSkinsFan]

The thing is with even 30 Buy ins you don't need to go on a 30 buy in downswing to feel uncomfortable, you only need a 15 buy in downswing.