please post longterm ptbb at given stakes

[fitnessfreak]

it has come to my attention recently that im not very good at poker. meh, im only 4 months into playing online fulltime, maybe ill start sucking less soon.

2.8ptbb over ~230k hands. 90k at 400nl and 140k at 200nl. i have actually run at 2.8 pretty much spot on for both limits.

heres my graph to corroborate (although my winrate to date is pretty far from a brag):



anyone want lessons on how to be a very mediocre TAG slight winner feel free to PM me [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can everyone stop posting sample sizes of under 150K hands? k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

sry we don't all run at 2ptbb/100 but play a gagillion hands per day

[/ QUOTE ]

I really dont play that much compared to a lot of people here (30 hrs a week at most)... meh I dont care about winrate nearly as much as hourly

[catcher193]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone want lessons on how to be a very mediocre TAG slight winner feel free to PM me [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
many do, nice graph.

[schwza]

238k hands of 2/4, 4.2 ptbb/100.
58k hands of 3/6, 1.4 ptbb/100 [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[DTD]

5.9 ptbb/100 over 300k hands. A bit over half 5/10, most of the rest at 3/6 with small amounts of lower stakes when I started playing and sucked even worse than I do now.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can everyone stop posting sample sizes of under 150K hands? k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

sry we don't all run at 2ptbb/100 but play a gagillion hands per day

[/ QUOTE ]

then the accuracy of your results are almost worthless

[/ QUOTE ]

o rly?

[EgoSlasher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can everyone stop posting sample sizes of under 150K hands? k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

sry we don't all run at 2ptbb/100 but play a gagillion hands per day

[/ QUOTE ]

then the accuracy of your results are almost worthless

[/ QUOTE ]

o rly?

[/ QUOTE ]



Yup, winrate takes a really long time to converge properly. You can have a high theoretical winrate and still break even for close to 30k hands, which is why you need really large samples.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
can everyone stop posting sample sizes of under 150K hands? k thx

[/ QUOTE ]

sry we don't all run at 2ptbb/100 but play a gagillion hands per day

[/ QUOTE ]

then the accuracy of your results are almost worthless

[/ QUOTE ]

o rly?

[/ QUOTE ]



Yup, winrate takes a really long time to converge properly. You can have a high theoretical winrate and still break even for close to 30k hands, which is why you need really large samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

plz come up with an exact number where they converge with reasoning, otherwise i will just continue to think you have no statistical background at all. why is 150k the magic number? how do you take in account the level that a player is playing at? why can't players be playing like [censored] for 30k hands?

yadadada

[jalexand42]

[ QUOTE ]

Yup, winrate takes a really long time to converge properly. You can have a high theoretical winrate and still break even for close to 30k hands, which is why you need really large samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a hunch, but anyone who breaks even for 30k hands probably isn't a very good player, and therefore wouldn't have a high theoretical winrate.

This is a good thread, here's hoping some more regs post.

[Majik]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yup, winrate takes a really long time to converge properly. You can have a high theoretical winrate and still break even for close to 30k hands, which is why you need really large samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a hunch, but anyone who breaks even for 30k hands probably isn't a very good player, and therefore wouldn't have a high theoretical winrate.

This is a good thread, here's hoping some more regs post.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha woot? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]