time permitting, can a winning player never book a losing session?

[buddhablessed1]

say i make 5bb/100 playing online 3/6 after 10k hands with a standard deviation of 16bb/100. assuming my bankroll is unlimited and my play won't suffer from lack of sleep, about how many consecutive hours would it take for me to guarantee i never book a losing session? is this even a valid question?

[mosdef]

if you assume that, after several hands, your results can be approximated with a normal distrbution with mean 5BB/100 and standard deviation 16BB/100, then you will never have probability 0 of losing over any time frame. you'll have more success if you want to pick a threshold of n games where your prob of losing over n games is less than 10%, 5%, something like that. but it will never be 0.

[buddhablessed1]

makes sense, ty.

[KenProspero]

Winning players can have losing months or longer.

[macdaddy991]

Isn't your entier life of poker just supposed to be one big session? In that case it would be either a winning one or a losing one.

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't your entier life of poker just supposed to be one big session? In that case it would be either a winning one or a losing one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur.

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't your entier life of poker just supposed to be one big session? In that case it would be either a winning one or a losing one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur.

[/ QUOTE ]

That settles it. xBB/LT it is.

Reality can be so depressing and this forum keeps one's imagination in check.

Onaflag..........

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
say i make 5bb/100 playing online 3/6 after 10k hands with a standard deviation of 16bb/100. assuming my bankroll is unlimited and my play won't suffer from lack of sleep, about how many consecutive hours would it take for me to guarantee i never book a losing session? is this even a valid question?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can NEVER guarantee this. Even if you are a solidly winning player (i.e. you have a firm understanding of the game and are playing against donks), it is possible (though extremely unlikely) that you will get sucked out on every hand you ever play.

[AaronBrown]

I'd just add that there's about one chance in 1,000 a random individual is so psychotic, they cannot tell reality from fantasy. If you played 25,600 hands with an expected win rate of 5 BB/100 hands and a standard deviation of 16 BB/100 hands, there's only one chance in 3.5 million that you would be behind by the luck of the cards. So, as a Bayesian, you would have to prefer the hypothesis that you were crazy, and too crazy to know it. You'd also have to prefer hypotheses like (a) your win rate is not 5 BB/100 hands, (b) your standard deviation is not 16 BB/100 hands, (c) the hands are not independent, (d) you're being cheated. All of these are much more likely than a bad run of luck.