can't win at 5/10 full

[sl4v3]

My long term win rate at 3/6 is 1.66/100

After moving up to 5/10:
my win rate at 5/10 6 max is 1.47/100 (31,000 hands)
my win rate at 5/10 full is -.75/100 (18,000 hands)

Is it possible I'm just running bad for this long at 5/10 full?

Now, I do think the 6 max games are much better than 5/10 full (5/10 full seems extremely tight). And I do think I am at least running somewhat bad at 5/10 full. But shouldn't I be at least even after this many hands if I stand a chance to take any money from this game? Is 5/10 full so much harder than 3/6 (or 5/10 6 max for that matter)?

Perhaps a normal person would simply play the games that are clearly more profitable. But I have a hard time accepting defeat and abandoning 5/10 full as a loser.

[Perseus]

[ QUOTE ]
My long term win rate at 3/6 is 1.66/100

[/ QUOTE ]

After how many hands?

[ QUOTE ]


After moving up to 5/10:
my win rate at 5/10 6 max is 1.47/100 (31,000 hands)
my win rate at 5/10 full is -.75/100 (18,000 hands)

Is it possible I'm just running bad for this long at 5/10 full?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. 18,000 hands is statistically meaningless. You probably know your winrate within +/- 2.5bb/100, but it depends on your standard deviation. I consider Pokerbob a great 3/6 player who really tries to learn, and I know he has posted break even 20,000 hands streaks. Same with Microbob. Other well respected posters have posted break even streaks as high as 60,000 hands.



[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps a normal person would simply play the games that are clearly more profitable. But I have a hard time accepting defeat and abandoning 5/10 full as a loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally have limited experience on 5/10 full so I can't really answer this question. However, do not let your pride get in the way of your decisions. If you really feel you cannot beat 5/10 full then there is no shame in dropping down. It really depends what you use poker for/what your bankroll is....etc.

If you have a high enough bankroll AND like playing shorthanded, I would give 5/10SH a shot (but I would have AT LEAST 600BB's). If you are more comfortable at 3/6, by all means drop down. If you really want to play 5/10 full, try another site (I'm assuming you are playing party right now), as I found, in my limited experience, other sites have fishier 5/10 full games than party.

I hope this helps.

[thejameser]

5/10 ~ Better Players
5/10 = Expect decreased winrate compensated by higher limits
5/10 = 18K Not Sh*t

[goodguy_1]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. 18,000 hands is statistically meaningless

[/ QUOTE ]

18K hands is not statistically meaningless-thats ridiculous. Yes it's too small a sample to make absolute assesments of your earning potential but it isnt irrelevant.
18K hands is equivalent to 514 B&M hours-roughly 3 months of play for a B&M pro.

Here's my take on this- your $3-6 LHE Full winrate is only fair and we need to know how many hands that sample is based. If you played 25K of $3-6 your winrate assuming a 14bb/100 sd at a 95% confidence level is -0.075 bb/100 to +3.395 bb/100. I assume you have played more than 25K hands at $3-6 so its likely you are a solid winning $3-6 player.

Your winrate at $5-10 6MAX on 31K hands is a real positive.Assuming your sd at $5-10 6MAX is 15 bb/100 w/ a 95% confidence level your winrate is -0.20 bb/100 to 3.14 bb/100. So again you are most likely a winner at $5-10 6MAX .But even on 31K hands at $5-10 you could be only 1-2 bad sessions from being only say a 1.25bb/100 winner...that means very high session variance. It is hard for me to believe that a 1.66 bb/100 $3-6 Full LHE player is going to beat the $5-10 6MAX for more than 1.50 bb/100 unless you've really found your nitche at $5-10 6MAX ...since you are making ~$15.00 an hour at $5-10 6MAX and $6.37 an hour at $3-6 Full..it sounds to me as thu you may NOT be settled in $5-10 6MAX and your $5-10 winrate may be on the high end short-term at least or you would be satisfied just to play $5-10 6MAX without any qualms. If you are confident in your $5-10 6MAX results play that instead of $3-6 or $5-10 Full.

On your actual $5-10 Full results 18K hands does tell us something... it tells us you are most likely struggling to make it work at this level. Dont look at the outliers 10K,20K hand stretches for good to very good players look at your own results and study them. With an sd of 14 bb/100(that's my $5-10 Full sd) and -0.75bb/100 winrate after 18K hands you are most likely a loser at this game..the range of your winrate -2.30bb/100 to +0.81 bb/100.

Yes it is possible you've run poorly for this stretch ..but even if you account for running poorly you may be only even to +0.50 bb/100 ..yes if you've run crazy bad(outside 3 standard deviations) maybe you are a 1.00 bb/100 winner.

I have crushed $3-6 and $5-10 Full and I now play a mix of $5-10 6MAX ,$5-10 Full and still some $3-6 F/Short..but I'm very game selective. About 3 weeks ago I had an 11K hand break-even streak at $3-6 Full that really sucked so yes it happens but imo 20K,40K,60K stretches at stakes where you are a solid winner are very very rare.

here's my advice make sure you have solid footing on solid sample at $3-6 .You should strive to do 2.00-2.50 bb/100 at $3-6. IF you are beating the $5-10 6MAX for your 1.66bb/100 winrate and you can deal with the variance I would play 6MAX-I know the swings are tough-but you get used to them.If you work on your $3-6 game and continue to do well at $5-10 6MAX I see no reason why you cant become a 1.25bb/100-1.75bb/100 winner at $5-10 Full.

Of late $5-10 Full games have been getting much better with more games w/7.50+ bb pot averages..but you need to very selective it's easy to end up in very poor games at $5-10 Full.Be more table selective and your results will really improve I'm sure..

I'm sure with a liitle work you can do well in $5-10 Full.

[oreogod]

This should help with variance:

http://www.muchosucko.com/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/Politics/bush_goggles.jpg

[BK1248]

I was down after 7k hands -3.3/100 @ 5-10, 18k hands i was down .-.167/ 100 , and at 53k hands i am at 2.1/100 8 tablin. So the first 20k u probably are running poor.

[DeezNutz3]

Thats a hot last 35k hands or so.

[PokerBob]

Why not just play 5/10 6max? You get more hands/hour, and you are winning over 30K hands? I don't get it. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

By the way, 18K as well as 30K hands, is just a drop in the bucket.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider Pokerbob a great 3/6 player who really tries to learn, and I know he has posted break even 20,000 hands streaks. Same with Microbob.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, i was -0.5BB/100 over 20K. ChrisDaddyCool, who is infinitely better than I am, was break-even for 60K. Variance is a whore, but she's out there.

[Augustus3000]

I think that the problem may be your play. This is just a thought, but if you are only beating the 3-6 at 1.66 bb, which is very mediocre, the 5-10 is probably too tough for you right now. Im not saying this to berate you or anything, just from experience. I beat the 2-4 party games at 3.19 over a long time, and when i moved up to 5-10 i was having trouble keeping my winrate ove 1 bb/100. granted i didnt have a big sample at 5- 10 but i played enough to know that the game is much less beatable than the 2-4 and the 3-6 for that matter. at 3-6 i was runing 2.09 bb/100 though the sample was onlly 10,000 hands or so. maybe you should try to practice more at 3-6 or even the 2-4 where if you play well you can make even more. hope this helps and you start killing the games! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the problem may be your play. This is just a thought, but if you are only beating the 3-6 at 1.66 bb, which is very mediocre, the 5-10 is probably too tough for you right now. Im not saying this to berate you or anything, just from experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
at 3-6 i was runing 2.09 bb/100 though the sample was onlly 10,000 hands or so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above two quotes are from a first-day poster. I hope we won't be needing to have a "troll alert" in the very near future.

[Perseus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. 18,000 hands is statistically meaningless

[/ QUOTE ]

18K hands is not statistically meaningless-thats ridiculous. Yes it's too small a sample to make absolute assesments of your earning potential but it isnt irrelevant.
18K hands is equivalent to 514 B&M hours-roughly 3 months of play for a B&M pro.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok let me clear up my thoughts.

After 18,000 hands, let's assume someone is perfectly even. Now, without looking at previous win rates at other levels, someone with standard deviation that 2+2ers would consider "average" could either be a -2bb/100 long term winner OR a 2bb/100 long term winner. By saying statistically meaningless I mean that variance still plays a major role and one cannot narrow down their winrate with any type of certainty.

Now, in this case the poster has played other limits where he has been a semi-long term winner (assuming a decent sample size at 3/6).

However, the BEST way to know if your playing well is to post hands and to constantly critique ones game. Do this, and the winrate will take care of itself.

[sl4v3]

Once I discovered where in PokerTracker to find my standard deviation, I was able to compute the standard error and realize that 18,000 hands is not sufficient to tell me I am a losing player at this level with even 68% confidence (1 standard error).

Interesting enough, after making this post, I went on a decent run and 24 hours later I am now *almost* back to even at 5/10 full.

Thanks for all the responses.

[rmarotti]

Keep it in politics.

[rmarotti]

Every post makes me like you more.