Update as a beginner...

As some of you know, I am new to profitable poker. I have read a couple books, and read these forums. I currently have over 5000 hands played in about a week. I keep track of my own stats given by Pokerstars (in an excel spreadsheet). I opened PS with $50 last week, and I am currently sitting at $86. I mainly play SNG and have won 1st place 2 times, along with a 3rd thrown in there or so. I also took 2nd place on my first Multi-table SNG of 45 people.

Also, my roommate gave me $20 to play for him on BoDog where I was able to take it from $20 to 45$ in 2 days. Unfortunately, he plays on it too and now we are down to $8. It is his money though and no risk to me. He was going to give me a %, but it looks like that may not happen. Either way, that is more experience for me. It feels good that someone has the confidence in me and thinks I am a good poker player.

The purpose of this post is for the beginners who may feel frustrated and feel like they can't win. I have gotten frustrated, it happens to everyone. All you have to do is to be patient and wait for the strong cards. Don't play the marginal hands and don't try to get lucky. Luck will play its own game. Also, the biggest thing I see that beginners have a problem with is folding. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO FOLD! There are many times I'll fold K10 or A10...and others. Have patience and the money will come to you! GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE. /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[SheridanCat]

Here's a warning to you and anyone else just starting out and feeling good about their game.

Don't become focused on results. A week or two weeks or a month or a year mean nothing in the long run. Don't be fooled into thinking that you are a winning player because you are running well.

Variance will bite you - I guarantee it. You may not have experienced the 100BB downswing you may have read about. But you will - many times. You may experience a 200BB downswing. You may go broke.

Also, don't be fooled by the talk on this board. The majority of players on 2+2 are likely not long term winning players. Yes, there are more winners here than there are in the general population, but that's not saying much.

I've been playing regularly since 2000. Of those 5 years, 4 have finished positive and one slightly negative. I am not certain I am a winning player yet.

Forget the results day-to-day or month-to-month. Yes, track them, but don't let them make you think you are a great player.

Do strive to play correct poker more often than you play incorrect poker. Poker is a journey, not a goal. When you are stuck in a black hole of losing, that thought might help you.

For a real eye-opener, everyone should occasionally visit the Psych Forum.

Regards,

T

I agree, however, this is the difference between losing constantly, to winning constantly. I don't win every time I play. Two books turned my game around 100%.

[SheridanCat]

Yeah, I'm probably crazy.

Regards,

T

First, I'd like to thank SheridanCat for all the great posts in the beginners forums - I for one do appreciate them. Nice to have a seasoned player chime in for us beginners.

ItalianFX, reread what SheridanCat wrote, then reread it again. It's important, and I don't think you're quite getting it.

Great post Sheridan!


Here's a question though...what is an adequate sample size to determine(maybe not determine, but get a feel) if your are a winning player? We all know that 5k is not enough...how about 15k? 30k? Where do we begin getting "an idea" of how we are doing? I know, 30k hands is nothing to someone who plays seriously for two or 3 years, but is that good enough to get a sample? I mean could we really expect a run of bad hands(or good hands) that lasted 30k hands, or will that give us a pretty good average of good and bad runs?


Thanks!

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post Sheridan!


Here's a question though...what is an adequate sample size to determine(maybe not determine, but get a feel) if your are a winning player? We all know that 5k is not enough...how about 15k? 30k? Where do we begin getting "an idea" of how we are doing? I know, 30k hands is nothing to someone who plays seriously for two or 3 years, but is that good enough to get a sample? I mean could we really expect a run of bad hands(or good hands) that lasted 30k hands, or will that give us a pretty good average of good and bad runs?


Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

I have over 100K hands in PT and I am not sure if I am a winning player. I think you need somewhere between 250k and 500k before you can start to make an honest assessment. Of course you can see trends in your play after 10-20k hands (PFR, VPiP, Aggression, etc.) that might indicate your potential, but getting caught up in stats has dangers.

Remember that we play a game that has a huge degree of luck involved. Of course there is skill, but do not discount the fact that someone can get more than their share of luck (either good or bad) for what seems like an extended period.

Focus on making correct decisions, then the results will take care of themselves.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I have over 100K hands in PT and I am not sure if I am a winning player. I think you need somewhere between 250k and 500k before you can start to make an honest assessment.

[/ QUOTE ]

So before online poker, a pro had to play over a year to know if they were a winning player*? I don't buy it.

You can tell by theory if you're playing well enough to beat the game you play in, even if technically you don't have a large sample. I know I can beat the Foxwoods $2/4 because I play moderately well and my opponents play abysmally. I don't need a statistically significant sample to know that.

*50 hands/hr * 10 hours/day * 350 days / year -> 175K hands, all with fairly generous assumptions.

[SheridanCat]

Well, I posed the question in Poker Theory after doing a search. We'll see what people think there.

Regards,

T

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]

You can tell by theory if you're playing well enough to beat the game you play in, even if technically you don't have a large sample. I know I can beat the Foxwoods $2/4 because I play moderately well and my opponents play abysmally. I don't need a statistically significant sample to know that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. The question was how can you know if you are a winning player overall. There are many games that I can, with absolute certainty, say I can crush (online NL $25, B&M 1/2 NL) and I don't need 175k hands to prove it.

I define a winning player as someone who can win regardless of the level they play because they possess the necessary knowledge and skill to beat the game. I know I can't answer this question because I haven't played enough hands to feel confident that my skills will allow me to succeed at NL $1000 or NL $2000 and I haven't played enough (or should I say any) hands in this environment to get a feel. So far I am doing fine in my progression, but I know I have a long way to go.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I define a winning player as someone who can win regardless of the level they play because they possess the necessary knowledge and skill to beat the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

But surely there must be some limits to that "regardless" in practice, no? Obviously I will likely never be able to sit down with +EV in the Big Game at the Bellagio, but that doesn't mean I can't be a winning player overall in the games I'm likely to frequent. On the other hand, I grant you that beating the Foxwoods $2/4 or Pacific 5c/10c isn't exactly a career-long goal.

There must be some middle ground in there where you say, "I'm a winning player in this game, but not yet at this game." Right?

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]

There must be some middle ground in there where you say, "I'm a winning player in this game, but not yet at this game." Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly true. Moving from the Bellagio 4/8 to the 8/16 to the 15/30 is a big change and each game requires some adjustments. Same for most locations, online or live, when making a significant move.

I think the process of evaluating your winningness is ongoing - even after you've found a comfortable and profitable level.

Regards,

T

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
what is an adequate sample size to determine(maybe not determine, but get a feel) if your are a winning player? We all know that 5k is not enough...how about 15k? 30k?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it is possible to conclude that you are a winning player after 5k hands. It's just unlikely that you have enough evidence at that point.

These discussions frequently degenerate into anecdotes of big swings and increasingly wild estimates of how many hands are needed. It's better to look at some math.

In limit, the standard deviation is typically about 15 BB/100. (In limit 6-max, 17 BB/100.) The standard deviation of your win rate after n*100 hands is about 15/sqrt(n) BB/100. A rough 95% confidence interval is 2 standard deviations in each direction about your observed rate. If you are 3 standard deviations above breaking even, you have strong evidence that you are a winning player.

If you win 10 BB/100 over 5k hands, you are about 4.7 standard deviations above 0. Although a player winning 4 BB/100 would have to run very well to win 500 BB over 5k hands, a break-even player would have to be much, much luckier. You can't trust the 10 BB/100 observed rate, but you can reasonably conclude both that you have been on a very lucky streak and that you are a winning player.

When I started playing NL 100, I won 14 (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y61/pzhon/eightsomefish.gif) BB/100 over my first 6500 hands. My SD was about 45 BB/100, so the SD of my win rate after 6500 hands was about 45/sqrt(65)~5.6, and I was ahead by 2.5 standard deviations. At that point, I stopped worrying about whether I was winning at NL 100, though I did not have confidence in the 14 BB/100 figure.

[AASooted]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a question though...what is an adequate sample size to determine(maybe not determine, but get a feel) if your are a winning player? We all know that 5k is not enough...how about 15k? 30k? Where do we begin getting "an idea" of how we are doing?

[/ QUOTE ]

See this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=inet&Number=1342415&fpart= &PHPSESSID=) for information on how to determine confidence intervals for your win rate. If you have Excel, you can enter the formulas and plug your numbers in.

[4_2_it]

Absolutely there are limits. I guess I tend to get a little anal sometimes /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
So before online poker, a pro had to play over a year to know if they were a winning player*?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah...even a year of playing live full time for 50 weeks would only give you a maximum 60k hands...(30/hr*40*50)