losing/winning sessions

[Silent A]

For those who want to make some sense of these numbers:

w = win rate/100 hands
s = standard deviation/100 hands
n = number of hands/session

then

z = w*sqrt(n)/10/s

expected winning session % = NORMSDIST(z)

NORMSDIST is an excel function that calculates the cumulative probability based on the normal distribution.

Eg. if w=4.25, s = 60, n=1000

z = 0.224

expected winning session % = 59%

[grizy]

60 to 65% is really really good.

for every 1000 hands I have just under 58% chance that I won money.

[Kirkrrr]

This is a really interesting top and something I have been thinking a lot about lately. Here's the bigger question, though:
If your efficacy rate is - lets say - 60%, does that mean that for ever $100 you win, you should expect to keep only $60?.. that looks good on the surface but shouldn't be correct becaue a long-term winning player will maximize his wins while minimizing his losses, but I would love to see if someone could run some math on this, although I would have no idea from which theoretical framework to approach the problem [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Kirk

[Silent A]

The 60% means you show a profit in 60% of your sessions and a loss in the other 40%. It says next to nothing else on its own.

[AbZurrrd]

You could win 99% of your sessions and still be a losing player.

To me 60% or 65% is A LOT. I mean, A LOT. Even too much, like having a W$SD of 60%. Every player knows or should know why a high W$SD is bad. Same goes for the sessions. If you see a guy almost always winning something, he's likely not making as much as he could if he wasn't playing like a vagina (time-wise).

Read Mike Caro's advice in SS2, the tip about "manufacturing a winning streak". DON'T DO THAT...

I used to play NL HU on FTP and won just about 85% of my sessions, and was actually winning BUT when I saw the difference between my average winning session and my average losing session (and also the average length for each) it was clear that I was trying to be "in the green". So I was just lying to myself with my "impressive" results.

Don't do that. Win 40% of your sessions if u want but NAILED them. Don't chase your losses for the rest, etc. etc. AND DON'T TRY TO PROTECT YOUR WINNINGS.

This was my $.02.

--- AbZ [52% winning sessions at PLO 10,25&50 @ 17 ptBB/100]

PS. OK... only 10K hands in PTO [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Silent A]

I'm pretty sure cmyr plays a lot of hands/day (and he's defining a session as a day, not a single table session). The more hands in each "session" the higher you should expect the % winning sessions to be.

I gave a theoretical method for calculating what winning % you should expect. If your numbers are significantly higher then you're probably manufacturing winning sessions. However, if you're in the right ball park then all is OK.

[AbZurrrd]

No worries. I don't know OP and didn't assume anything about him. My 2cts contribution simply pointed out the relatively low correlation between winning sessions and winning play/attitude, since it's easy to get confused, as some posts suggested. In short, it shouldn't matter too much, if you don't want to let it affect your play. --Ab

[Motorcycle Mike]

[ QUOTE ]
The more hands in each "session" the higher you should expect the % winning sessions to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutey correct. In fact this is probably underestimated by most players, but is one of the SINGLE most important variables there is. If you're playing shorter session lengths (we'll use the 15 minute mark in one of the replies), you are very much gambling on running well right off the bat. Most times this does not happen. You may be only slightly behind, but that still counts as a loss. It seems like I build my stack slowly by picking up small pots, with the occasional spike from the big pot wins. I believe it's possible for a great player (Like Rempel's post) to play long enough that he can come back from a losing session *most* times, and if, theoretically speaking, he could play for days straight at the same level, he would never book a losing session.


The good news is that this doesn't need to happen. I like what Chip Reese said in Bob Ciaffone's book that, "Even though a good hold'em player will win 7 or 8 out of 10 sessions, and a good PLO player only 6, the PLO player is going to book some MAMMOTH wins when he is running well."

I guess PLO is a game of "Quality", not "Quantity"!!!