|
|
#3
02-26-2005, 08:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Never lose
[ QUOTE ]
obviously it's possible. [/ QUOTE ] but what is the smallest X day period that one can maintain a winning period continuously (and why?). i.e. if X=7, then one is saying that a person could/would never have a losing week. 
|
|
#4
02-26-2005, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Never lose
obviously its theoretically possible, just like its theoretically possible that i will never win a hand again, ever. its unlikely that a player will never have a losing month, but possible. if you really want to calculate the likelyhood of never having a losing month, then the geniuses in the probability forum would be better suited for this question, using standard deviation, win rate and risk of ruin formulas to determine a mathematical answer.
|
|
#5
02-26-2005, 11:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Never lose
Well, I would say that the chances of winning a substantial amount of consecutive sessions/days would be higher in whatever game you were strongest at and also at a limit you were very comfortable at or lower. Doyle Brunson says that after his first cancer surgery he recovered for weeks, then went out to play and won over 50 consecutive sessions, never losing one.
I would make the assumption that a strong player at NL would have a better chance of racking-up consecutive wins than a player at limit. Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
|
|
#6
02-26-2005, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Never lose
that's a tricky question. the shorter the time frame the more difficult it is to guarantee you'll win. i don't think anybody would say that they never have a losing hour. realistically, everybody has losing weeks and months too. so i think you have to shoot higher for your X.
i recently read that a winning player has to play for 1,400 hours to statistically guarantee that he'll be ahead. that's almost 6 months of playing 8 hours a day, if my math is right. so a 'winning' player should never have a losing 6 months.
|
|
#7
02-26-2005, 01:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Never lose
I would have to say that for a player who is playing two 5+ sessions a week, for the rest of their life(assuming long life), even against the worst players in the world, and never making incorrect decisions on probability calls, it is still not going to happen. Probability will inevitibly hit this individual. Not for long, mind you, but there will always be the bad week/month in a players life.
Then again, I'm just a Pollock, so what do I know. Ez
|
|
#8
02-26-2005, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Never lose
youre coming to your conclusion on a logical standpoint, which may be perfectly accurate, but i assure you that it is mathematically possible for a winning play to never have a losing month in his poker career. you say that the odds of probability will eventually catch up with this player, but you neglect to consider that if the odds of a player never having a losing month in his career is 1:20,000, then 1:20,000 winning players will never have a losing career. probability will not necessarily catch up with an individual, just like you cant make such a vacuum statement when telling someone that they cannot win the lottery.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
