[Smurph64]

Yes and no depends on my experience. The problem for me with the one big session scenario is that it has a few assumptions which are false.

If I were a robot, playing other robots, playing at 100% capacity and concentration then sure its one big session.

The fact is that sessionally we can be very inconsistent. We pick the wrong table, we are distracted, we are in the wrong seat position, we are at the wrong limit, all have a very real affect on the first x amount of hands where x is a function of knowing when we actually start thinking about them as variables that we can control.

Many players sit down and say, ok I need to have 40k hands at $1 to know if I am any good....they build a bankroll through bonuses etc. and multitable afterwards for lets see what would be the amount of time.... 70hands per table per hour*4 rounded down 250 hands an hour so after 160 hours of play they think they have enough hands to consider their skill factor as relevant. But how can it be relevant if you are making around 6 poker decisions a minute?

At that speed you have no idea how much table selection plays a factor in your results, or how many decisions were wrong not because of skill but because of time.

The fact is that if you look at anyone's play there is a point where they stabilize and get to their peak, before that they are in the minor leagues.

So knowing that, I take my one big session with a grain of salt because the first 60k hands, which took 770 hours(77 hands per hour) to play, over a period of 17 months studying at least twice that amount during those 17 months, I played were training for me.

So I ended that database and started a new one because now I believe my skillset is such that while still improving is consistent enough to consider the one big session theory as relevant.

I am only into hand 10k now here and I have a lot to go but it's now it's a lot more encouraging to think of the one big session scenario. Now I am not afraid of variance because I know my game is good enough to beat it. Now it gives me comfort knowing that my pita 38% success rate with JJ is going to change. Now I know that when the Aces get cracked that it was bound to happen because I was running at 96% win rate.

I think now the big session scenario helps because I don't need to see it to know I can beat it first. I can use the big session thinking to stop myself from tilting with great wins and great losses.

So the big session theory is good but only in the right context.