If you played 100,000 hands...

[Esso]

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.

[JaneTheHot]

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%

[BigBadBabar]

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.

[Christian_Peters]

[ 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?

[Bob T.]

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.

[HoneyBadger]

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.

[Bob T.]

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

[bernie]

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