Should BB/100 over different limits be weighted?

[bugsbunny]

Simple example that will illustrate what I mean.

You play 300 hands.
100 hands at 5/10 = +20 = +2 BB/100 = net of +2 BB
200 hands at 10/20 = -40 = -1BB/100 = net of -2 BB
Net result = -20

Total BB won over 300 hands = 0
PT currently would report this as a net of 0 BB/100

If you weight the results you get an average BB size of (100*10 + 200*20)/300 = 16.667
That would equate to a BB/100 rate of -1.2 BB/100

[Josh]

I don't think we can do this. The whole point of BB/100 is so you get a limit-independent view of your winnings. Adding weight based off the limit would defeat this purpose.

[bugsbunny]

This isn't a big deal to me but thought I would throw it out. At the least it might make an interesting option.

People have traditionally used it the way you mention (as a limit independent view), but that may well be because that was the only way it was ever presented. And ultimately I'm not sure if that's valid. Limit's do make a difference and impact earn rates. Theoretically at least (although not necessarily true in reality - at least not always) competition should get tougher as you move up in limits.

A weighted average is more accurate when looking at things like bankroll requirements for the levels that you're currently playing. Especially if it's a constant mix (eg 1 table of a higher limit + 2 tables of a lower limit).

Most people play at 1 given limit, with occasional forays into other limits - for them it really wouldn't make much difference since the weighting of their normal limit would overwhelm the sporadic forays. And when people are (considering) moving up a limit they'll look at the limits independently of each other anyways.

I'm done with this now.

[Josh]

I don't think it's a good idea to change BB/100, but I'm not against adding a new stat if enough people want this information.

[Peligroso]

[quote="bugsbunny"e35]Limit's do make a difference and impact earn rates.[/quotee35]Of course they do, but the BB/100 stats are [be35]relative[/be35] and therefore they scale so it gives a quite good picture of how good you're doing on your level. I know you're probably aware of that, but it's the whole point with the stat, and I can't see how to make it better or more "fair".

[nottom]

$/100 is essentially the same thing as what you are looking for. I suppose there could be a stat that calculates the average BB size or something, but I don't see any need for an additional BB/100 type stat.