|
|
|
|
#1
03-16-2007, 05:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sustainable winrates at NL?
[ QUOTE ]
You need to win consistently three out four of your sitdowns. It is three steps forward, one step back, over and over. If you can't do that, find another game. I wrote this History Series on the News,Views, Gossip section including one about Bill Smith, a World Champ, and my early Mentor. He taught me that. Very similar is when to quit a single game. If you get up big winner and then fall back, quit when you have lost 25% of your winnings. Again, one step back. Of course, a lot more goes into when to quit a poker game. [/ QUOTE ] This is just plain wrong. If on average I play 10 hands in each session, I would be a winner in very close to 50% of them in the long run. If I played 4000 hands each session the percentage would obviously be a lot bigger. You should think of poker as just one long session. Quit when the game is bad or when you're not playing well. 
|
|
#2
03-16-2007, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sustainable winrates at NL?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You need to win consistently three out four of your sitdowns. It is three steps forward, one step back, over and over. If you can't do that, find another game. I wrote this History Series on the News,Views, Gossip section including one about Bill Smith, a World Champ, and my early Mentor. He taught me that. Very similar is when to quit a single game. If you get up big winner and then fall back, quit when you have lost 25% of your winnings. Again, one step back. Of course, a lot more goes into when to quit a poker game. [/ QUOTE ] This is just plain wrong. If on average I play 10 hands in each session, I would be a winner in very close to 50% of them in the long run. If I played 4000 hands each session the percentage would obviously be a lot bigger. You should think of poker as just one long session. Quit when the game is bad or when you're not playing well. [/ QUOTE ] He's probably talking about live. You can't really do 10 hand "sessions" when you play live... and you can't multi-table either.
|
|
#5
03-17-2007, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sustainable winrates at NL?
I was also gonna ask this question. I am currently playing 0.05/0.10 NL Full Ring. My number was like 17/7.6/1.3. The first 2k hands I was running like 17 PTBB/100. But was down to 12 PTBB/100 for the next 250 hands or so. I guess this is my first actual experience/appreciation of poker variance.
|
|
#6
03-17-2007, 08:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sustainable winrates at NL?
[ QUOTE ]
I was also gonna ask this question. I am currently playing 0.05/0.10 NL Full Ring. My number was like 17/7.6/1.3. The first 2k hands I was running like 17 PTBB/100. But was down to 12 PTBB/100 for the next 250 hands or so. I guess this is my first actual experience/appreciation of poker variance. [/ QUOTE ] You'll get tired of hearing this, but 2300 hands is nothing. Although you are very possibly a winning player, this small sample size can not accurately determine your winrate. And analyzing a sample of 250 hands is nothing. ALthough you may be playing one table and take a week to play those hands, in the long run, 250 hands is a mere hiccup.
|
|
#7
03-17-2007, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sustainable winrates at NL?
Most players need 200K+ hands to be reasonably sure that their true win rate is within 1 PTBB of their sample win rate (the one shown in PT). The actual number depends on the estimate of the standard deviation of your win rate (or an estimate of it). Even this is slightly suspect as your true win rate might change over the course of 200k+ hands (you may improve). Lucky
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
