Is it Possible to be Solid AND Win Big??

[slim]

I play 5/10 only so far. I consider myself to be a solid poker player because I win about 70% of my sessionsand average about 1.7BB/hr overall.

Out of all the times I've played, the most I have ever won in one session is $550. I have accomplished this feat many times, as well as many in the 300-400 range. However, I have never won 7-8 hundred dollars or even 1000 dollars in one session. I notice however, that some of the loose players, and maniacs sometimes win 700-1000 dollars in one session.

My question is this.......is it much more likely that a loose player or maniac can win large amounts of money than a tight solid player? Am I wrong in thinking this? The reason I think this is because, when a loose player has a lucky day, and he plays 50-60% of his hands, he will make tons of money. A solid player however does not play many hands, so even if he is having a lucky day, can only win so much. I find that some days, a lot of the hands that I toss (i.e. 7-5o,9-7o,K2s etc)would have won had I played them, but I don't. A loose player would have played all those hands and on a good day, win most of them.

I am not planning on becoming a loose player but want to know if my thinking is right. Has anyone here ever won 800-1000 in one session of 5/10,4/8,6/12 and considers themselves a tight solid player? How did you do it? Did you keep getting AA, AK all night? Were you playing looser that night for some reason?

[eMarkM]

Sounds about right to me, your variance will be no where near the loose players, good and bad. I've seen a loose player take down 1K in a 10/20 game in half hour on more than one occassion. You may never accomplish that, but then you won't drop a rack in a half hour either, and you see the loosies do that all the time, too.

Ever notice that it's always the loosies that have the kill button? The tight players are rarely in two hands in a row, let alone winning two hands in a row. It's the bad players that are forced to post a kill. It's like a tax on bad play.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

It's possible, but it won't happen very often. I have won 140 BB in a game once, and 130 BB in a game once, and 100 BB in a game a few times. Mostly, I usually win or lose on the order of 30 BB or so, and the large wins / losses are rare. Those times I had huge wins the deck was running over me all night. My generally tight play prevents me from having very many huge winning sessions. Now the maniacs will have these sessions much more often, because they play every hand and raise all the time, but they'll also lose big FAR more often.

[bernie]

"It's like a tax on bad play."

what a great way to describe a good players advantage in a kill game

b

[haakee]

The loose players have higher variance and are more likely to book a big win or a big loss than you as a tight player.

We can do some math to see the likelihood of booking a big win. If you're a tight player you may have a standard devation of about 10 BB/hour. Say your expected win is 1BB/hour. In a 4-hour session, your standard devation is sqrt(4) * 10 BB == 20 BB. That means that 95% of the time you will end up between -36 and +44 big bets per 4 hour session (within 2 standard deviations). Only about 1 out of 1000 sessions will you book a win that is 3 standard deviations above the norm, or +64 BB. However, your standard devation will go up in online games (more hands per hour), loose-aggressive games and short-handed games, so you may see bigger than usual fluctuations in these situations.

Personally, in about B&M 100 sessions that average around 4 hours, I've never had bigger than a 45BB win (although I did have a $180 win in a $2-4 game in only 1.5 hours once).

[Tommy Angelo]

"Out of all the times I've played, the most I have ever won in one session is $550."

Stay longer.

[slim]

Actually, a lot of times, I'll be up $400-$500 in about 3-4 hrs and I do stay longer (about 10hrs) thinking I'll keep winning but it doesn't happen. Usually, I'll lose some of it back and go home only up 100-200.

[Ed Miller]

Actually, a lot of times, I'll be up $400-$500 in about 3-4 hrs and I do stay longer (about 10hrs) thinking I'll keep winning but it doesn't happen. Usually, I'll lose some of it back and go home only up 100-200.

Obviously (if you are a winning player) it is more likely that you will continue to win than that you will lose some back. You probably don't have enough data points.

[Ulysses]

Personally, in about B&M 100 sessions that average around 4 hours, I've never had bigger than a 45BB win (although I did have a $180 win in a $2-4 game in only 1.5 hours once).

If you weren't such a wussy about going back home and getting your beauty rest, you'd be able to win 100BB+ in some of the games I've seen you play in.

My biggest win was 120BB. I believe it happened in an incredibly soft session when the only other decent player at the table went home because he was tired and had to keep his standard deviation within the right bounds. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Seriously, if I'm winning a lot after 4-5 hours, I usually stay for another 2-3 hours unless the players I've been winning from have all gone home. I almost always continue to win during that period. After 8-10 hours or so, I now often leave even if I'm still winning a lot because I'm not as sharp as I'd like to be at that point and I'm rarely still all that psyched about playing poker at that point....

[haakee]

Maybe in hours 0-4 he's a winning player, but in hours 4-N he's not a winning player. If you can only play your A game for 4 hours then go home afterwards. The game will still be there when you come back.

[haakee]

If you weren't such a wussy about going back home and getting your beauty rest, you'd be able to win 100BB+ in some of the games I've seen you play in.

Hey, I have to look good for all those young, single ladies who play 6-12 at AJ's! /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

My biggest win was 120BB. I believe it happened in an incredibly soft session when the only other decent player at the table went home because he was tired and had to keep his standard deviation within the right bounds.

Gee, I wonder who that was! It didn't hurt matters any that a chip dispenser took my seat.

In all seriousness... I can play my A game for maybe 4-6 hours (on a good day!). When I can't play my A game anymore, I go home. The game is usually very good when I come back a few days later. I love Bay Area poker.

[slim]

I don't think it's so much that I lose my A game after 4 hrs......it's that if I have won 400-500 in 4 hrs, I had luck on my side.I've hit my top pair-top kickers and hit my sets and flushes.......but obviously the luck can't go on for 10 hrs. On top of that, the fish at the table lost all their money andon the solid players stick around. In order towin 100BB in 4hrs, you must have had luck on top of being a goodplayer.

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
but obviously the luck can't go on for 10 hrs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Once you've gone through the first 4 hours of "luck", the next 6 hours are just as likely to be "lucky" as any other 6 hour period.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
On top of that, the fish at the table lost all their money andon the solid players stick around

[/ QUOTE ]

This is much much much more likely a reason than "the luck ran out"

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
In order towin 100BB in 4hrs, you must have had luck on top of being a goodplayer

[/ QUOTE ]

Any moron can win 100BB in 4 hrs with luck, you don't need to be a good player. But if you are a good player, you'll need the luck too.

[slim]

I know mathematically, the next 6 hrs is as likely to be lucky as the previous 4 hrs, but realistically, I don't think it is. How often have you been on a rush for 30 min compared to a rush that lasts 10 hrs?

[pudley4]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I know mathematically, the next 6 hrs is as likely to be lucky as the previous 4 hrs, but realistically, I don't think it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
How often have you been on a rush for 30 min compared to a rush that lasts 10 hrs?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not the same as what we are talking about.

Look at it this way - when flipping a coin, what are the chances it will land on heads? 1/2. How about heads 2 times in a row? 1/4. 3 times? 1/8. 5 times in a row? 1/32. So obviously it's much more likely to get 2 times in a row than 5 times. This is your "30 minute rush vs 10 hour rush" analogy.

However, if we flip and get heads 3 times in a row, what are the chances it will land on heads the next 2 times? Still 1/4. We've already gotten past the first 1 in 8 shot of getting heads 3 times in a row. We now only need to look at the next 2 times. This is your "already rushed for 4 hours, what will happen in the next 6 hours" analogy.

[MarkD]

Of course mathematically your luck will always be the same. There is no luck, just probabilities.

But psychologically when a person begins to think they've won enough and should leave chances are they will stop playing optimally, thus they should leave. Too many times I have played longer than I wanted to and left with less because of it. I know everyone says that if a game is good then a good player should play as long as he can, but one must take into consideration their pyschological disposition.

[FishyWhale]

I truly wonder how a 1.7 bb/h winner like you can ask such questions, but if you really don´t know:

a) Maniacs and loose-passives can win more IN A SESSION because of the short term fluctuations.

b) It doesn´t really matter that their top session results are better than your top session results, because they don´t maximize their EV like a solid player does, so they will be LONG TERM losers.

c) The reason why a solid image is best is because it´s easier to bluff.