The Long Term - will you ever get in enough live hands?

[fishyak]

Live will you ever get in enough hands to...

1) Have true statistical significance in terms of determining if you are a truly winning player or no? Probably not due to thin margin of "victory" coupled with big standard deviations requiring large numbers of hands to narrow the range of the deviations. And the coup de grace... hopefully, you get BETTER as you play those hands and your target moves!

2) win "more than your share" of these mega-pots? Very hard to answer that one. And while that one pot can determine whether you win or lose for an individual session, the better players appear to adopt the attitude that it is all one session.

3) have a good guessestimate of whether you are a winner or not at a certain level? Yes, IMO, you can. Just keep score all the time and have a running spreadsheet of your results. After about 50 sessions of accurate scorekeeping you should have a baseline that is more likely to be right than wrong. But streaks, hot and cold do happen and I feel that you can allow yourself some "anecdotal" observations about where you stand. For me, I have been unconscious playing 2/4 and my winrate is over 3BB/hr. Over course, I moved up to 4/8 just as a cold streak blew in so my winrate there is breakeven. And I've got 800+ hrs. of play spread across 7 different kinds and levels of poker play this year.

The 1BB/hr. rate IMO still remains evidence of a good solid winner with enough hours. My goal is to get all my games to that rate or better.

So keep accurate score. IMO, winners keep score, whiners complain about bad beats. I also believe that by having focus on your total poker picture, you can balance out the days you are killing it with TPTK value bets that hold up for smaller pots against the monsters that get away.

Make sense?

[threeducks]

I have given this some though as well and have asked the same question. You only get so many shots at huge pots. And when you lose a big one you might not get another shot at a huge pot in quite awhile. For instance if you get say 1,000 shots at a huge pot (like I had KK and lost on the river to QQ and the pot was about $450 at 6/12) and you do not win your fair share then that might affect your win rate. If you won more than you fair share that could have a positive affect on you win rate.

Whether you are a winning player or not. Variance.

[Yads]

Nope, give up now as you're always going to lose in the short run.

[Frond]

I agree with the long term thinking of your sessions as just one continuous session. It helps when you are running bad in the short term of things.

I have a pal who asks me how I did after every session I play mostly because he is just interested. I am honest and tell him when I win or if I lose and how much. When I tell him that I had a loser he always says " Oh man sorry about your loss" like it's the end of the world. To me it is now no biggie. Many Months ago it would have been. I just take it in stride.

Wouild be good to hear from a "long time winning player"(???) here on this thread.

[BadBigBabar]

i don't ever expect to have played enough hands live to see my true winrate / get through variance

i say that, though, because i'm over 550k hands played online [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, give up now as you're always going to lose in the short run.

[/ QUOTE ]

yads, i know you're like a med stakes hotshot, but please refrain from talking down to those us of still moving up the ladder, kthx

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[gobbledygeek]

Maybe I'm overestimating the importance of these big pot / big lead pots that make up such a small portion of the hands I play? Perhaps the nickel and dime stuff play far outweighs these hands due to the amount of times they occur?

Maybe I think about this stuff more than I should in downswings (currently in midst of fun 175BB downswing; it's the fourth major downswing I've had so I'm really not sweating it too much). But I've also thought about it in upswings. My last upswing I looked at my results and, man, it seemed that a lot of my winnings boiled down to a few hands here and there.

GrationalizingbadplayasdownswingG

[fishyak]

[ QUOTE ]
(Your are) overestimating the importance of these big pots. The nickel and dime stuff play far outweighs these hands due to the amount of times they occur.

it seemed that a lot of my winnings boiled down to a few hands here and there.



[/ QUOTE ] edited by fishyak

Does 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10? Yes. But if you had a large list of numbers between -10 and 10, with 10 being the highest, would the 10 stand out as most important? Particularly so if the total of those 100's of numbers was just 10? But truly the 10 1's are of equal mathmatical importance, correct? We tend to focus on the extreme outcomes, even though the average outcomes are of equal importance to the final total. The search for drama.

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Your are) overestimating the importance of these big pots. The nickel and dime stuff play far outweighs these hands due to the amount of times they occur.

it seemed that a lot of my winnings boiled down to a few hands here and there.



[/ QUOTE ] edited by fishyak

Does 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10? Yes. But if you had a large list of numbers between -10 and 10, with 10 being the highest, would the 10 stand out as most important? Particularly so if the total of those 100's of numbers was just 10? But truly the 10 1's are of equal mathmatical importance, correct? We tend to focus on the extreme outcomes, even though the average outcomes are of equal importance to the final total. The search for drama.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ow my brain, stop it!

[threeducks]

site Variance:
If we flip such a coin once a second for a year, most people believe over that many trials that heads and tails are in the lead roughly equally often. Nothing could be further from the truth! The probability that the less fortunate outcome is in the lead less than 54 days is slightly more than .5. The probability that the less fortunate outcome is in the lead less than nine days is .2.