if you play one 6max table with andy, franky, george, colin and vanessa. Andy, frank and george are all average winning poker players and have an ev of 1bb/100. Vanessa is the best reg and has an EV of 4bb/100, colin is unfortunatley a very poor poker player and is expected to be a loser in this game (luckily for colin he is filthy rich from a software company he started owns several very large houses and has an incredibly hot wife so he doesnt give too much of a shit) and ofc the other player in the game, is you.
every 100 hands colin has to lose 7bb for you to break even.
Now lets replace frank and George with Alex and Stuart (who are both also losing poker players, alex especially is very poor) now the three of them only 2big blinds every 100 hand an you make a small profit.
The point isn't that you can win more off the regs than the weaker players, it's that the regs will win some off the weaker players diluting the profit you can expect to make.
At 6max 400nl roughly 25bb/100 comes off the table in rake, so Colin would actually have to lose at 32bb/100 for us to break even, all other things being equal. With 3 fish they only have to lose at 10bb/100 each on average.
@pleno: 500nl zoom isn't beatable for 6bb/100 imo. Sounds like there is some selection bias there, take the next month's results of those regs who you think beat it at 6bb/100 and average them to find a more realistic projection.
Theres been some sickos on 2p2 who have done challenges and achieved it over a decent sample. Not sure on exact figures tho. But yeh ur probs right, just heaters itts.
yeh some people have definitely beat it at 6bb/100 over 200k+ hands, and a decent amount of regs have won at over 4bb/100 over bigger samples.
but how many tried? #selectionbiasunderstandingfail
what? All I was saying is that its possible to achieve such win rates, obviously not everybody wins at 4bb/100 DUCY?
It's like saying "I think achieving 7bb/100 at 200nl on ipoker is achieveable" and posting lots of examples. You would then say..
but how many tried? #selectionbiasunderstandingfail
Don't 'DUCY' me you cheeky whippersnapper, you've misunderstood my post, only proving that my clumsy hashtag assessment was spot on. Take 2 mins to google selection bias and get back to me. However, Lewis clearly understands it and his post means I'm probably wrong on this one. Good motivation to get grinding tho!
Author