Beating the Game
 

At what point can one consider themselves to be beating the game? I'm not 100% sure of the answer for online (answer in # of hands, obv), and I really have no clue about live (answer in hours played possibly?) I've been trying to keep better records lately, and I'm wondering how long I need to wait before I can evaluate if overall wins are merely an upswing in variance or a series of solid +EV plays.

Any comments/questions appreciated.

Re: Beating the Game
 

wrong forum, but usually u can tell if you're a winner after about 30k hands and afer about 100k hands you can get a decent estimate of your winrate, although even after that many hands it's not entirely accurate

Re: Beating the Game
 

I believe as long as you know you're superior to the guys your playing against, the rest is irrelovent.

Re: Beating the Game
 

yeah, you shouldn't have to check the stats to see if you're a winning player

You're either better than most or you aren't, if you are you'll know it

Re: Beating the Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe as long as you know you're superior to the guys your playing against, the rest is irrelovent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is more to it if you're getting your [censored] wrecked over 83206767 hands.

Re: Beating the Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe as long as you know you're superior to the guys your playing against, the rest is irrelovent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is more to it if you're getting your [censored] wrecked over 83206767 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're not exactly superior, are you?

Re: Beating the Game
 

Sorry if this is the wrong forum, mods please move if thats the case. I picked middle stakes NLHE because I'm mostly talking about 2/5 NL live.. Where should this have gone?

If Arturius' rule is all there is to it, then I have no worries whatsoever, but I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't getting overly confident too early. I pretty much know I'm better than basically everyone in my local club's game, I just wanted to find out if there was a general consensus as to how many hours I had to put in to really be able to evaluate my results.

I'll rephrase then: do I really need 100k hands to be able to estimate my win rate? Since I'm talking live, that's only going to work out to about 3,534,715 hours (I know its more like 3,000, but you get my point).

Re: Beating the Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe as long as you know you're superior to the guys your playing against, the rest is irrelovent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is more to it if you're getting your [censored] wrecked over 83206767 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're not exactly superior, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]
What about FGators?!?!

Re: Beating the Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this is the wrong forum, mods please move if thats the case. I picked middle stakes NLHE because I'm mostly talking about 2/5 NL live.. Where should this have gone?

If Arturius' rule is all there is to it, then I have no worries whatsoever, but I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't getting overly confident too early. I pretty much know I'm better than basically everyone in my local club's game, I just wanted to find out if there was a general consensus as to how many hours I had to put in to really be able to evaluate my results.

I'll rephrase then: do I really need 100k hands to be able to estimate my win rate? Since I'm talking live, that's only going to work out to about 3,534,715 hours (I know its more like 3,000, but you get my point).

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Beating the Game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe as long as you know you're superior to the guys your playing against, the rest is irrelovent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is more to it if you're getting your [censored] wrecked over 83206767 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're not exactly superior, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]
What about FGators?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]