How Many Hands To Know If You're A Long-Term Winner?

[grandgnu]

I've heard somewhere in the 20,000-50,000 range. I'm on quite the tear multi-tabling the Omaha hi/lo games and can't wait to reach the point where variance is no longer a factor in deciding if I'm a winner for the long-haul.

Anyone care to enlighten as far as the actual number of hands recommended to arrive at this conclusion?

[manpower]

Your answer can only be given in statistical terms, ie, you're 95% certain that your true winrate falls between x bb/100 and y bb/100.

To find it, plug standard deviation, winrate and hands played into this handy converter

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Your answer can only be given in statistical terms, ie, you're 95% certain that your true winrate falls between x bb/100 and y bb/100.

To find it, plug standard deviation, winrate and hands played into this handy converter

[/ QUOTE ]

Handy, yes. But there are some questionable statements on that page:

[ QUOTE ]

3) A certain limit doesnt stay the same all the time. If it - for example - gets more aggressive (or if you now prefer to play against aggressive but bad players, somethinf u didnt like before) your Standard deviation goes up and that means your swings will get bigger.
4) When you get better you normally play more hands and that increases your Standarddeviation. Swings can be bigger.
5) If you multitable your winrate goes down.
.
7) In a thread at 2+2 one guy - BruceZ - seriously challenge Malmuths bankroll requirements and says they should be twice as high if you want to be sure to never go broke. You will find more about it here and here. In short: If Bruce is right you should double the size of the bankroll the above calculation gives you. Then you should be safe for a lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Numbers 3, 4, and 5 are questionable. Number 7 implies that if you have the calculated bankroll, you have zero risk of ruin. That's wrong. Certainly neither BruceZ nor Mason Malmuth never said any such thing.

[Razzputin]

How do you calculate your standard deviation?

[Nomad84]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you calculate your standard deviation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker Tracker

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your answer can only be given in statistical terms, ie, you're 95% certain that your true winrate falls between x bb/100 and y bb/100.

To find it, plug standard deviation, winrate and hands played into this handy converter

[/ QUOTE ]

Handy, yes. But there are some questionable statements on that page:

[ QUOTE ]

3) A certain limit doesnt stay the same all the time. If it - for example - gets more aggressive (or if you now prefer to play against aggressive but bad players, somethinf u didnt like before) your Standard deviation goes up and that means your swings will get bigger.
4) When you get better you normally play more hands and that increases your Standarddeviation. Swings can be bigger.
5) If you multitable your winrate goes down.
.
7) In a thread at 2+2 one guy - BruceZ - seriously challenge Malmuths bankroll requirements and says they should be twice as high if you want to be sure to never go broke. You will find more about it here and here. In short: If Bruce is right you should double the size of the bankroll the above calculation gives you. Then you should be safe for a lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Numbers 3, 4, and 5 are questionable. Number 7 implies that if you have the calculated bankroll, you have zero risk of ruin. That's wrong. Certainly neither BruceZ nor Mason Malmuth never said any such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anything questionable about 3, 4 or 5. But you are right that 7 is wrong.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.
.
3) A certain limit doesnt stay the same all the time. If it - for example - gets more aggressive (or if you now prefer to play against aggressive but bad players, somethinf u didnt like before) your Standard deviation goes up and that means your swings will get bigger.
4) When you get better you normally play more hands and that increases your Standarddeviation. Swings can be bigger.
5) If you multitable your winrate goes down.
.
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see anything questionable about 3, 4 or 5. But you are right that 7 is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

3) Aggression, in and of itself, may actually DECREASE, not increase variance.

4) When you get better, your winrate presumably goes up so even if your SD goes up, the ratio of variance/WR (this determines your BR requirement) may not increase. Swings are not necessarily bigger.

5) Some people claim their winrate goes UP when they multitable (presumably because they focus better, can better avoid tilt, or some such thing). Of course there must be a limit as you add tables, but in any case it isn't obvious that multitabling always leads to a lower winrate.

[Quicksilvre]

The rule of thumb I use is 30,000. However, manpower's calculator is probably a good bit more accurate.

[grandgnu]

If you're a long-term winner, it stands to reason that playing more tables means you get more hands played in a shorter time and thus you "get to" your winnings that much quicker.

Variance might deal you a losing session on a table or two, but playing 4-8 tables at a time it's less likely. With a game like Omaha hi/lo, it's pretty easy to figure out if you're drawing to the nuts and if you should continue with the hand, so it's not so hard to multi-table it and increase your win-rate.

Especially if you factor in rakeback.

A pot-limit, no limit or short-handed game might require more attention to be paid though, so you might decrease your win-rate in those instances.

[timmer]

I think #5 is almost unquestionalbly correct.

this is why winning multitabling 15 30 players earn way less per hand than winning 15 30 B&M players.

multi tabling 15 30 online players earning over $1.20 per hand are unheard of but B&M 15-30 players earning over $1.20 per hand are fairly common place.

~t