If you played 100,000 hands...
 

If you played 100,000 hands should you expect to win 10,000 of them if you were playing 10 people ring games?

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

How did you figure that?

I might fold 75-80% of hand preflop. Then fold 75% of the called had on the flop when the flop misses so right there your down to what like 5%?

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

well... aren't you supposed to win 10% of the hands you are dealt?

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

[ QUOTE ]
well... aren't you supposed to win 10% of the hands you are dealt?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be COOL!

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

[ QUOTE ]
well... aren't you supposed to win 10% of the hands you are dealt?

[/ QUOTE ]

No...at small stakes you play fewer hands, but you make more money on them when you win and lose less money on them when they lose. It's about $$$, not individual pots.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

hmm... so on average if there are 1000 hands deal to 10 people that are playing their winnings would not be consisted of 100 hands??

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

I guess if no one ever folded and 10 went to every showdown you would expect each player to win 10% over a large sample.

Playing a reasonable taggish game at full ring I'm guessing you should win about 6%-8% of all hands.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you played 100,000 hands should you expect to win 10,000 of them if you were playing 10 people ring games?

[/ QUOTE ]

If all 10 players saw a showdown every single hand, then yes, you would win 10% of your hands, just like all other players. Is this what happens? What difference does this make?/what was the motivation for this question?

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

No, as usually the most aggressive player at the table, ( unless there is a maniac around) I would expect to win more like 11,000.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

I'm usually close to that figure. Especially at higher limits you expect to win about the same number of hands, maybe slightly more if you bluff well, and your winnings come from losing a bet less or winning a bet more on those hands.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

[ QUOTE ]
How did you figure that?

I might fold 75-80% of hand preflop. Then fold 75% of the called had on the flop when the flop misses so right there your down to what like 5%?

[/ QUOTE ]

You also might be too (weak)-tight [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

What difference does this make?/what was the motivation for this question?


[/ QUOTE ]
To check your game. If you're supposed to win 10% and you only won 5% there is something wrong with your game.

(I checked: 9.9% won out of the last 100k hands FR)

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

I had said 6%-8% but I came up with that number using an "average" % Flops seen and an "average" W$SF. But that's too low because it ignores pots you win while never seeing a flop.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

To check your game. If you're supposed to win 10% and you only won 5% there is something wrong with your game.

(I checked: 9.9% won out of the last 100k hands FR)


thats right, previously when I was winning my % of winning was 10.86 but now its 9.55%

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

it doesnt matter if you win 10% of the pots, it just matters than you win 10% (or more) of the money, or in other words, that you're profitable.

plenty of lags win 15% of pots or more but lose money because they lose to tags in all the big pots.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

I was just considering if you are a tight player that plays about 20% of the hands.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

This analysis is ridiculous, pointless and very basic. This is what my brother used to say to me while looking at his stats on Pokerroom while playing.

5% doesn't necessarily mean your game is wrong. You could be running bad.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

I dare say that if you win only 5% in 100k (!) hands there is a problem with your game.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

Well for 100K hands. Ummm yeah, that would be one hell of a run of bad cards for there not to be major flaws.

My point is, who of you actually analyzes your failure or success at this game by that measure? I'd say none since there are so many other better measurements.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

Oh, that way. Of course there's better measures; I thought it was mainly a theoretical question.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

It seem to be a bit, but feels like it belongs in the NC thread because it really doesn't add anything. I'm probably just being a b*tch.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seem to be a bit, but feels like it belongs in the NC thread because it really doesn't add anything. I'm probably just being a b*tch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it does for the OP. They dont seem to realize that you will lose a lot of money fighting for those last few percent of hands that are your "due"

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seem to be a bit, but feels like it belongs in the NC thread because it really doesn't add anything. I'm probably just being a b*tch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it does for the OP. They dont seem to realize that you will lose a lot of money fighting for those last few percent of hands that are your "due"

[/ QUOTE ]

True, it may add something for the OP, but as you have basically said, that addition is actually subtraction if they're focused on the remaining "due" hands instead of just making the correct play in the moment.

I just don't want some noob to come in here, read this and actually think it's good to think about.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

As stated, it does not matter how many pots you win. It is the money that you win. For 60k hands I am winning 10.6% of my hands but that does not mean as much as my bb/100. I would rather win fewer hands and more money, if I know how.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

If you played every hand to the end, it might look that way eventually. You'd also be a losing player.

No, more like 8-9000 hands. Because usually you'll be playing tighter then the rest of the table.

b

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

[ QUOTE ]
To check your game. If you're supposed to win 10% and you only won 5% there is something wrong with your game.
(I checked: 9.9% won out of the last 100k hands FR)

[/ QUOTE ]

I decided to check mine in PT but then realized I don't know how. Is there a specific stat for this or did you infer it from other stats?

FWIW I think the looser the game the lower your % of pots won should be, simply because you're folding when your opponents are not, but then value betting the hell out of them when you are in the pots you are likely to win. As someone else said if you wanted to openraise every hand you'd probably win more than 10% of pots but you'd be a losing player. In a very tight game you might be correct to win more than your share because you're the only player at the table who knows how to bluff.

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

I don't know, I use PO and there's simply a %won stat...

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

edited for stupidity

Re: If you played 100,000 hands...
 

Ok, I checked, and for the last 300K hands with 8 or more players dealt in I won just over 10% of the hands.