What do you think a fish's win rate would be

I would think it would be less than 0.

I don't keep track of opponents winrates in HEM, but it shouldn't be too hard to look up.

My 5CD HUD shows total win/loss and winrate, and there are people that have been playing for several thousand hands with winrates as low as -5BB/100

I imaging that it is similar for NLHE

For myself personally, I'm +ve at some limits, and -ve at others, and all of them are pretty close to 0.

However I don't consider myself a "fish".

This will be really hard to figure out. Firstly it really depends on a fish. A 90/80 type of whale could easily be losing at over 100bb while some tight 5/1 fish will only be a slight loser and then there all the other fishes in between.

Another problem's going to be that very few fish get a decent enough sample size to get somewhat an accurate winrate.

Another problem is the fact that fish don't have tracking software so they don't even know how much they're losing, especially not in terms off bb/100.

The only way to find out is to go check out PTR for the site's that it still works for and check out some of the fishes your playing with.

Thanks for the posts.

I don't know why I didn't think about looking in my database initially. I guess I thought sample size on each player wouldn't allow a true estimate, but as a whole when searching for like VPIP>37% (in 6max), winnings and hand totals are available and I can calc bb/100 from there.

I'm wondering if there is some bug in 'opponents' 'summaries' in HEM2 as when using all players average bb/100 is -2.17 over 3mill hands. Can't really work out if that is to be expected or not. Rake isn't that high if even factored in at all.

Rough estimate is less than -rakebb/100. Basically, if you don't only lose to rake you clearly lose to others. If you lose less than the rake, you just bleed to the site, don't you? That's if you define a fish that is a losing player but you obviously have to think he loses to you, not the overall field because, in some very unlikely case (sarcasm), Hero is not the best player at his stakes.

depends on rake and how bad he is

i filtered winrates for players with vpip higher than 50 @ 6+handed and it was around -50bb/100

ofc a 25 10 fish will lose much less

I also calculated around -50bb/100 and that makes approximate sense given most tables have one recreational player and average reg makes around 1.5BB/100? and probably doesn't always play on a table with a >40%VPIP player.

BUT I started questioning this given another search, when using ALL players, average bb/100 is = -2.17 over 3mill hands. Can't really work out if that is to be expected or not. Rake isn't that high if even factored in at all in HEM. Average player will be a loser but surely this number should be 0bb/100 - rake? As the regulars winning will neutralise the losers....

Hi Des,

Have you considered also split pot rake? Good times for the house, not so much for the players.

My smaller database (only recently started playing again) has an average BB/100 of -6.46 for all seen players. I'm assuming that's the house cut. Sound's fairly close.

According to PT4 my attributed rake paid over 18.1k hands works out to 6.785 BB/100.

Originally posted by Desultory
I also calculated around -50bb/100 and that makes approximate sense given most tables have one recreational player and average reg makes around 1.5BB/100? and probably doesn't always play on a table with a >40%VPIP player.

BUT I started questioning this given another search, when using ALL players, average bb/100 is = -2.17 over 3mill hands. Can't really work out if that is to be expected or not. Rake isn't that high if even factored in at all in HEM. Average player will be a loser but surely this number should be 0bb/100 - rake? As the regulars winning will neutralise the losers....

-2bb/100 is correct for nl400 aprox i guess. would be surprised if you were talking about nl100
ofc it won't be 0. it would be 0 in a non rake system, as money flows between players. in a rake system, some of the money goes to the poker room.

In FTP NL5 my rake is 7bb/100, in PartyPoker NL4 is 4bb/100.
I pay for rake as much or more than how much I win. I find this a bit too much.

You also have to consider that all of the hands you have, are when you are at the table. So if you're a good player the others winrate might drop a bit since you're at the table and giving them a hard time, while their winrate is higher when you're not around

Thank you all for your comments. It seems the general trend is that you think this -number is due to rake but I still wonder if that is the case.

First off; does HEM2 calculate winnings minus rake? I think it does. But after looking at Net won per hand - it doesn't seem accurate. Related to this thread: Net Won issue in HEM2

2) Rake paid in bb/100 per average hand at 6max is:
bb Stars
$0.02 6.3
$0.05 5.2
$0.10 5.1
$0.25 4.7
$0.50 4.2
$1.00 3.5
$2.00 2.5
$4.00 1.6
$6.00 1.3
$10 0.9
$20 0.4
$50 0.2
This is taken from a 2010 2+2 thread so the -2.1 would probably make approx sense in my case.

3)Gadgaard, I think this would be negligible between regs, but when factoring in potential Recreational players sitting down, maybe. I really don't know

Would like to get to the bottom of this. I think contact with a HEM2 rep is the next step.

they have a win rate?

-300$ per month. I know one. Thats about 200 SNG HU HT buyins.

♦

Mine yesterday / today is -73.88 bb / 100.
Tilted alot.

nice quote ufonautas! I think you got that from one of my posts.