---

Poker Video: Misc/Other by PygmyHero (Micro/Small Stakes)

THats pretty obv though durka beacause your nut will often be closer to your actual earnings pr. month..
How many hands did you type in as an expected hands/month?

Holdem manager doesn´t show Standard deviation, what is a good approximate for me playing 2-4$ with the stats 23/20/3,7 and mostly at 5-max. Hard to tell maybe but give me something.

Holdem manager doesn´t show Standard deviation, what is a good approximate for me playing 2-4$ with the stats 23/20/3,7 and mostly at 5-max. Hard to tell maybe but give me something.

Hard to tell if you don't specify the game you're playing. But I guess one can assume from the stats that it's NL so I'd say something in the order of 50BB per 100 standard deviation.

Clarification for NL and PL players

You will need to enter your SD in BB/100, same as a LHE player. I'm not a NLHE player so I don't know what a standard number is, but 50 BB/100 has been tossed around in this thread. If you need a more precise estimate just contact a NL player you know with a large database and ask them what they think (or what their db says).

In cell B12, the Big Bet, you need to enter 2*the big blind. So if you're playing 100NL enter $2 here.

Everything else should work out fine.

Sugar Nut - does everything make sense now? I didn't hear back from you. Sorry if I offended you - I wasn't trying to make fun of the fact that you're not a pro. I'm not either and at the stakes you play I'm sure you make more than I do in a month. I was just having some fun - sorry if it came out the wrong way.

Jake123 - If you're playing limit I would suggest you use 17-18 BB/100. If you're playing NL I would suggest 50 BB/100 unless you get better advice from a NL player. I don't use HEM but I'm surprised that it doesn't show SD. If you searched pretty thoroughly and couldn't find it I'd suggest you write HEM support as they definitely should show it and I understand that the HEM team is very good about responding to these sorts of things and updating their product.

Medrakil - I'm with you now on the NL versus LHE stuff. So I already said I agree with your calculation for NLHE given the numbers you suggested.

The problem is that there's really no such game as 100 limit. If I leave all the stuff you wrote in for the NLHE player then the big bet is $2, meaning the game is really 1/2 LHE. In that case the spreadsheet suggests a BR of just over $300, or 150 big bets.

That is small from the perspective that most people advocate 300+ (really more like 500 now as I mention in the video) big bets. However, I don't think it's terrible small from the perspective that you have the player crushing the game for 3 BB/100 over a pretty decent hand sample size of 100,000 hands.

Note especially in that case how low their uncertainty in win rate is (~0.5 big bets). And we're over 99% sure they win at a rate of almost 1.5 BB/100. In other words, they're very confident they're a very solid winner. So it shouldn't be so surprising that their BR requirement is low.

Really intresting video i was wondering what stats i would need to make an sng 1 any ideas?

Number of hands would be Number of tourneys
Win rate would be ROI
SD in BB/100???
Uncertanity in BB/100???

pkr_brat, I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on this and that I did see your post and am not ignoring it. I'm not a tournament player so I'm not very familiar with the stuff that goes into it. I'm going to do some research and see if I can get you some answers.

pkr_brat, I haven't been able to figure this out. I have two problems - I'm not sure which stats should be involved, and even if I knew them I'm not sure what equation to use. If we figured out which stats for cash games were equivalent to which stats for tournaments I don't know that you'd just be able to shove them into the same equation I used for cash games (that is, there may not be a 1:1 equivalence).

If I had to take a guess I'd agree with you that:
number of hands ~ number of tournaments
win rate ~ ROI

I'd guess that:
SD in BB/100 ~ SD in % return per tournament (it could be SD in dollar return, but I think that's less likely)
Uncertainty in BB/100 would have to equate to something in the same unit as the above stat, so uncertainty in % return per tournament would be my guess

Unfortunately, in looking through PT I haven't been able to find anything that looks like a SD stat.

Sorry I can't help more. I'd advise you post in a tournament forum or do some searching on 2+2.

THats pretty obv though durka beacause your nut will often be closer to your actual earnings pr. month..
How many hands did you type in as an expected hands/month?

I know it's obvious, but it's not clear (without doing the numbers) how it affects BR calculations.

I put in 50k hands, which is reasonable.

Sugar Nut - does everything make sense now? I didn't hear back from you. Sorry if I offended you - I wasn't trying to make fun of the fact that you're not a pro. I'm not either and at the stakes you play I'm sure you make more than I do in a month. I was just having some fun - sorry if it came out the wrong way.

No offence taken pygmy, I'm just going through some tough real life times right now and am not online every day.

Seems to make sense, thank you.

I do unserstand and love humour, don't worry about that pygmy,

Sugar Nut

No offence taken pygmy, I'm just going through some tough real life times right now and am not online every day.

Seems to make sense, thank you.

I do unserstand and love humour, don't worry about that pygmy,

Sugar Nut

Assuming 5ptbb/100 WR, you'd have to play 25k hands to make your nut and you'd have absurd swings because your effective WR is zero. So, in order to have any chance to beat the variance fairy, you'd have to be putting in a minimum of 40k hands/month, IMO at 100NL with a 2500 nut and a WR between 4-5.

Also, it seems unclear that for the spreadsheet, those values are PTBB/100 right?

Also, it seems unclear that for the spreadsheet, those values are PTBB/100 right?

Yes. As mentioned earlier in this thread a few times, NL players will need to plug in 2*big blind for the "Big Bet" value in cell B12.

I do not take rakeback and bonuses into account in this spreadsheet. That's because they don't matter in terms of determining whether or not you are a winning player (i.e. I would consider a break even or small loser who makes money on rakeback and bonuses to be a 'profitable' player, but not a winner). They also then don't matter in terms of figuring out if you're beating a limit and should move up (assuming you use the metric I proposed - that you be 99% certain you are winning at your current limit).

I don't agree with this at all. I find it a bit arbitrary to draw the line on the rake-reduced and rakeback-added winrates. The ultimate goal is to make money and it really doesn't matter whether it's from "pure" win or rakeback. Rakeback just means that the effective rake isn't exactly what is announced on the site's rake structure. Different sites have different rake + rakeback systems and for the player, the only thing that really matters is the net result.

To give more concrete example let's think of a player A playing FL 2/4 on Ongame network and player B playing the same game on PokerStars. Both have the same raw winrate of say 4.5BB/100. Player A has a 50% rakeback deal, but what'll show up on Poker Tracker is 0.5BB/100 winrate (if it has converged), because Ongame takes roughly 4BB/100 rake. Player B, however, has 2.5BB/100 winrate on Poker Tracker as PokerStars take roughly 2BB/100 rake. So they both have a net winrate of 2.5BB/100.

So they have the same raw result, they net the same result (other one partly through rakeback), but what shows up without rakeback is radically different number. I don't see this should make any difference for determing whether one's "winner" or whether one can move up in limits.

I don't agree with this at all. I find it a bit arbitrary to draw the line on the rake-reduced and rakeback-added winrates. The ultimate goal is to make money and it really doesn't matter whether it's from "pure" win or rakeback. Rakeback just means that the effective rake isn't exactly what is announced on the site's rake structure. Different sites have different rake + rakeback systems and for the player, the only thing that really matters is the net result.

To give more concrete example let's think of a player A playing FL 2/4 on Ongame network and player B playing the same game on PokerStars. Both have the same raw winrate of say 4.5BB/100. Player A has a 50% rakeback deal, but what'll show up on Poker Tracker is 0.5BB/100 winrate (if it has converged), because Ongame takes roughly 4BB/100 rake. Player B, however, has 2.5BB/100 winrate on Poker Tracker as PokerStars take roughly 2BB/100 rake. So they both have a net winrate of 2.5BB/100.

So they have the same raw result, they net the same result (other one partly through rakeback), but what shows up without rakeback is radically different number. I don't see this should make any difference for determing whether one's "winner" or whether one can move up in limits.

I have mixed thoughts on how to factor in RB. I think it DOES matter in your example because the person w/ RB isn't beating the game very well without it. So, it would be a bad idea for him to move up vs the non-RB player since it seems unclear whether he can actually beat the game. All he's doing is what those 12 tabling RB machines do: they play simply to break even poker-wise, and make their money of RB. They can't really beat the game, but they don't care because they play well enough to not 'lose'. However, they likely experience big short-medium term swings...but they play so many hands that they usually even out when the month is done.

I tend to calculate my WR by putting in a hefty buffer. Over tonnes of hands, I'm a 4.5ptbb/100 winner, and my RB works out to 1.5ptbb/100 on top. But, I figure my combined WR to just be 5. This way, my confidence interval for being a "winning" player for 3.5ptbb/100 (poker-wise, not including RB) can be very very high. Thus, I can have a combined WR of 5ptbb/100 with 99%+ confidence and can calculate how many hands/month I need to play based on my nut and desire to grow my roll.

So, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you're at least 95% confident that you're a winning player for a limit, but you're not 99% sure (which we're assuming is a decent prerequisite for moving up), then RB can be used to push you over the edge. But, I don't think that you should use it to get you INTO the 95% confidence interval and use that as justification for moving up. I think one would be kidding themselves then into thinking that they're a solid winning player for a given limit.

I have mixed thoughts on how to factor in RB. I think it DOES matter in your example because the person w/ RB isn't beating the game very well without it.

But, really, what's the difference? Both are playing the same game, effective 2BB/100 rake with the same absolute and net winrate.

So, it would be a bad idea for him to move up vs the non-RB player since it seems unclear whether he can actually beat the game.

If you define "beating the game" as beating the gross rake, then this makes some sense, but it doesn't make any sense to make such a definition. :-)

PS. Maybe this discussion should be moved to its own thread or something. I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion about the video anymore.