2NL: good winrates by position

Hello!

I'm a beginner player. I've played 55k hands in the last two months playing 6+ tables with a winrate of 10BB/100+.

What I'm wondering is what are good winrate stats by position. I think 20bb/100 is possible overall, so i'm not yet satisfied, and stats by position would tell me what to aim for. Specifically, I'm losing so much on the blinds i'm embarrassed to say. Also, I lose a good chunk of what a win from the fish to good regs in all positions.

If there is someone with a big enough sample size and a good / crushing winrate please post a screenshot, that would help me alot.

Don't worry too much about this. It will vary from player to player.

There is nothing you can directly do to change your winrate, anyway. All you can do is to try and change your play. When you think about what you need to improve as a player, always choose things which you can directly control.

You can control when and where you play. You control whether you play when you're tilted. You control your own ranges and bet sizes.

You do not control your ability to win any given hand. You cannot control your overall winrate by any direct, single action.

It will stress you out more than necessary if you let yourself feel accountable for things which are beyond your control.

***
In the case that you were to fold every hand from every position, then you'd see this for your winrate
BB: -100 bb/100
SB: -50 bb/100
everything else: 0 bb/100

From the blinds, your "zero point" is already negative. When you look at the number that your tracking software tells you for these positions, be aware that they are skewed. They do not show your personal winrate directly. If you add back the 50/100 to the stated winrate, then you see your contribution to the winrate, ignoring the fact that you are forced to place a blind bet.

In general, these will be pretty low. In general, your highest winrate is from the BTN, and it decreases as you move around the table.

***
If you're winning 10 bb/100 overall, then you'll be moving up in stakes soon enough. Don't worry about trying to be the best pro at the micros. If you're crushing the micros, then you'll be (at least) winning the smalls. So there's no point in building 100s of thousands of hands at the micros just to prove you can have a maxed out winrate...
unless that's your thing.

I guess it could be your thing. I assume you're playing for money and moving up in the stakes, though.

I know what i can and what i can't control. That's why i'm asking for positional stats. After i know what kind of winrates are possible i can rethink my ranges and everything else

Originally Posted by gabl136

I know what i can and what i can't control. That's why i'm asking for positional stats. After i know what kind of winrates are possible i can rethink my ranges and everything else

Whatever your winrates are, they will improve as you focus on your individual leaks, and not vice versa.

For a more direct answer to your question, if you're winning 10 bb/100 overall, then whatever your positional stats are, they're good.
A rock-solid pro, stooping to the micros to make a point, can have an overall winrate of ~20 bb/100.

Different players will have different winrates from different positions, but in general, the closer you are to the button, the higher your winrate.

So.... take your current winrates for each position and multiply by 2. If you were a world-class pro, then that's what you might expect to see after 100's of thousands of hands played at the micros.

Bear in mind that the variance on a winrate in NLHE is usually ~80 - 100 (bb/100)^2. So the standard deviation is 9 - 10 bb/100.
This means that you'd expect any winrate stat to fluctuate by 9 - 10 bb/100 if you ~tripled your data set.

In general, this is a huge swing in a winrate, as you can see that your winrate of 10 bb/100 could be statistically 0 - 20 bb/100 with a confidence of 68%.

EDIT: Not expect (see underline above), so much as "not be surprised by." Ultimately, we do expect the current value to be the "correct" value.

Hello,

Love this answer MadMojoMonkey . I like this approach of how to deal with your winrate a lot.
I am an experienced poker player myself, know the things about floating , probe betting, using hand range with equity and whatever..But i have no knowledge of pure statistics(by that i mean standard deviation and variance and thinks like that)
My "win" rate is around -1BB /100... Definitely not that bad. Of course there are better players and a very lot of players who think they are better..
Anyway I would like to know more about it.. Can you maybe give me another example of those variable winrates ,
let's say 100 000 h and a winrate of 0 BB/100 with a confidence of 50 , 66 and 75 percent?

Also is it possible to make such assumptions with the EV line (i mean the yellow line in PT4 so not the effective green winrate line).

Thankx

yeah i said this to dude in other post


post hands man, and convert them..

Originally Posted by Schuppen

Hello,

Love this answer MadMojoMonkey . I like this approach of how to deal with your winrate a lot.

Hello. Thanks.

Ultimately, my approach to winrate is to look at it after the fact and say, "yep, that's my winrate." It's going to vary so much over a sample of less than thousands of hands that it's simply not a strong indicator of my play.

Originally Posted by Schuppen

Anyway I would like to know more about it.. Can you maybe give me another example of those variable winrates ,
let's say 100 000 h and a winrate of 0 BB/100 with a confidence of 50 , 66 and 75 percent?

When we're talking statistics about statistics (not a typo), we need to be very clear about what question we're asking. I'm not sure what you're after, here.

If you say the winrate is 0 bb/100, then I expect it to be 0 bb/100 after any number of hands. This means that no matter how wiggly the line of your winrate in a graph of winnings vs. hands, it is mostly flat.

If your "true" winrate is 0 bb/100, and you want to know what the expected value of your bankroll will be after 100,000 hands, at various confidence intervals, then:
@50% CI -> 0 +/- 1,908 bb
@66% CI -> 0 +/- 2,699 bb
@75% CI -> 0 +/- 3,254 bb

Notice that the expected value is always the "true" value - in this case 0 bb. Notice that as your confidence goes up, the spread in the value goes up. If you want an precise answer (with small +/-), then you get a very low confidence interval. If you want high confidence, then you get a very wide answer (with large +/-).

Originally Posted by Schuppen

Also is it possible to make such assumptions with the EV line (i mean the yellow line in PT4 so not the effective green winrate line).

Thankx

Yep, the math is not specific to the cause of the input. It's just taking the data points and quantifying the spread in them. Assuming randomness means what we assume it means and we don't dig too deep into that (lalalalala, random is random, cause my brain accepts it w/o question, lalalalala) - ahem - assuming that, then it doesn't matter whether it's dice or cards or people making choices or whatever.

We're just quantifying our lack of understanding and making predictions which stand up to a formal mathematical description. This formal description, thankfully, describes many observable phenomena and has proven to be quite robust at stating its limitations explicitly.

Pretty sure everyone is losing money on the blinds. Even then, if you're losing too much, then you're probably not folding enough.

Post a list of hands on the blinds, hands you consider tight folds, marginal calls, questionable decisions, etc, and see what others think. That's the best way to improve your winrate from the blinds imo.

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Post a list of hands on the blinds, hands you consider tight folds, marginal calls, questionable decisions, etc, and see what others think. That's the best way to improve your winrate from the blinds imo.

Agreed, we need to see some hands.