How many BB/100 hand is considered good at NL 100?

bustme · Nov 7, 2008

ChuckTs · Nov 7, 2008

1000 is good.

bustme · Nov 7, 2008

vanquish · Nov 7, 2008

SeanyJ · Nov 7, 2008

Depends on how many tables you're playing I guess.

henriquetnn · Nov 7, 2008

To play NL I usually use the technique of short stack, then I came to 2,000 in máximoo, and when reaching a strong hand, come heavy.
Because when you have something, you have something to lose, and it's not risking too high, because in a hand apathy can lose a lot.

tenbob · Nov 7, 2008

Anyone over 1 is good, trust me. 5 is excellent.

zachvac · Nov 7, 2008

imo anything over 3 is extremely solid. 5+ long-term and you'd be probably one of the top winners in the game.

KingCurtis · Nov 7, 2008

so x/BB should be higher at lower limits if you are a good player?

or is 3-5 good for any limit over longterm....

ChuckTs · Nov 7, 2008

Mase31683 · Nov 7, 2008

5bb/100 give or take a bit is a solid winrate. 3 to 5bb/100 is decent, and anything over 7bb/100 is just phenomenal. If you're under 3bb/100 there's likely some adjustments you should be making to your game to increase your winrate.

Mase31683 · Nov 7, 2008

This brings up the inevitable question:

"How many bb/100 would Jesus make?"

I say 27.23bb/100

BelgoSuisse · Nov 7, 2008

KingCurtis said:
so x/BB should be higher at lower limits if you are a good player?

or is 3-5 good for any limit over longterm....

There are two conflicting effects when you go up. On one hand you face stronger and stronger players on average, but on the other hand you pay less and less rake in BB/100 terms because rake is typically capped at $2 or $3/hand.

KingCurtis · Nov 7, 2008

ok just wondering...I'm at 4/100 BB for about 9k hands

BelgoSuisse · Nov 7, 2008

KingCurtis said:
ok just wondering...I'm at 4/100 BB for about 9k hands

Always good to be on the + side.

I only played about 6k hands at 10nl before moving up, but i ran at 9/100. Could have been a heater, of course.

Maybe just fold AK preflop all the time and your winning rate will skyrocket? (see November chat thread comment)

Monoxide · Nov 9, 2008

Im about 5bb/28k hands @ 100nl, so im pretty much crushing it atm then? Good to know.

shinedown.45 · Nov 9, 2008

Monoxide said:
Im about 5bb/28k hands @ 100nl, so im pretty much crushing it atm then? Good to know.

wouldn't that be a good indication that you're ready to move up?

Gorblid · Nov 9, 2008

what does it mean BB/100 hands?

BelgoSuisse · Nov 9, 2008

Gorblid said:
what does it mean BB/100 hands?

big bets per 100 hands, it's how you historically measure results in limit games. For no limit games, it means 2 big blinds per 100 hands. So if you earn 5BB/100 at 100NL where the big blind is $1, you earn $10/100 hands.

Jagsti · Nov 10, 2008

Anything under a 50k hand sample is just variance imo

BelgoSuisse · Nov 10, 2008

Jagsti said:
Anything under a 50k hand sample is just variance imo

Actually, even with 50k hands you could still be a few BB/100 from your true win rate, imo.

fwiw, i play around 30k hands per month, and that's enough to more or less ensure i don't loose money on any given month, but i can still end up with 0 or with 5BB/100 profits over a 30 days period. How much is the variance of the cards and how much is the variations in how good i play i really don't know.

tmac123 · Jul 3, 2009

bb/100 multiple tables.....

(Ha, thought I was starting a new thread- obviously referring to the statements above)

I was reading a forum today about bb/100 (big blinds per 100 hands-earning 6 bb/100 hands being very good apparently). This is not the question though.

They talked about how playing multiple tables will effect your earning ratio when calculating your profits. Their examples were, 5bb/100 playing one table will differ then playing 4 tables.

Am I totally missing something here when I say playing multiple tables creates NO variance when calculating your bb/100? I mean how I figure it, playing multiple tables is effecting TIME not hand ratio. One argument may be that different limits effect it but even if you were playing 1/2NLand 10/20NL the ratio will still be identical. For example: if you get 6bb/100 at 1/2NL and 4bb/100 at 10/20NL your still getting 5bb/100 hands. If you play 4 tables all 1/2NL you simply add all your hands up at the end and calculate the bb accordingly. The amount you made over TIME will be the only difference. Now did I just dig myself a big hole

or am I making sense? I say again, playing multiple tables does not effect your bb/100 hands, you just need to calculate your bb/100 differently. Please explain it to me like a child if I am wrong.

Thanks
Hope to hear back soon.

BelgoSuisse · Jul 3, 2009

tmac123 said:
Am I totally missing something here when I say playing multiple tables creates NO variance when calculating your bb/100?

what you're missing is that when you play more table, you give less attention to each individual hand/decision and therefore your edge over the competition decreases a little.

If you can play just as well playing many tables as you do playing one, then indeed your bb/100 is not affected whatsoever.

Four Dogs · Jul 3, 2009

I'm not sure if this helps but my pokertracker database shows that the ave BB/100 for all the winning players with more than 1000 hands is about 7BB/100. I would say 10 is fantastic.

Infamous1020 · Jul 3, 2009

this is an old thread

How many BB/100 hand is considered good at NL 100?

bustme

Rock Star

ChuckTs

Legend

bustme

Rock Star

vanquish

Legend

SeanyJ

Legend

henriquetnn

Enthusiast

tenbob

Legend

zachvac

Legend

KingCurtis

Legend

ChuckTs

Legend

Mase31683

Legend

Mase31683

Legend

BelgoSuisse

Legend

KingCurtis

Legend

BelgoSuisse

Legend

Monoxide

Cardschat Elite

shinedown.45

Legend

Gorblid

Rock Star

BelgoSuisse

Legend

Jagsti

I'm sweet enough!

BelgoSuisse

Legend

tmac123

Rising Star

BelgoSuisse

Legend

Four Dogs

Legend

Infamous1020

Visionary

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site