Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

I never meant to say that you could have a reliable winrate after 10K hands. However if you are not winning after 10k hands you are almost certainly not a winning player. I would think that it would be fair to say that if you can not acheive a winrate of 2bb/100 hands at .5/1 with a minnimum of 10k hands then you are clearly not a winning player. Obviously you can't PROVE that you are a winning player but you will have some confidence and experience and judgement about your readiness to move to the next level.

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

Wrong.

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of you teach me how to build planes, i will teach you how to win at poker. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

do model and/or paper count?? cuz I'd glady take you up on that offer

[/ QUOTE ]

Thinking more like a DC-9....

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

[ QUOTE ]
I never meant to say that you could have a reliable winrate after 10K hands. However if you are not winning after 10k hands you are almost certainly not a winning player. I would think that it would be fair to say that if you can not acheive a winrate of 2bb/100 hands at .5/1 with a minnimum of 10k hands then you are clearly not a winning player. Obviously you can't PROVE that you are a winning player but you will have some confidence and experience and judgement about your readiness to move to the next level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how long you have been playing poker, but it is possible for a winning player to lose over 10,000 hands. I've done it a number of times. It would be tough to do at .5/1, but I'm sure its possible.

That said, the original poster is inexperienced and clearly need to study more and play more. He just needs to work at it.

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

Got this from a poster named pzhon:
"After n hands, a 95% confidence interval for your win rate in BB/100 is roughly results +- 300/squareroot(n). So, if you win at a rate of 3 BB/100 for 10k hands, your 95% confidence interval would be 0-6 BB/100."

Using this formula you can see that 10k hands is not that significant. So, if he lost $2000 after 10k hands his win/loss rate is -1bb/100. With this formula his 95% confidence interval would be between -4 and +2 BB/100. In other words he could be a decent player running bad, a bad player running as expected, or a horrible player running good. The sample size really isn't that big.

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

[ QUOTE ]
it is possible for a winning player to lose over 10,000 hands. I've done it a number of times. It would be tough to do at .5/1, but I'm sure its possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The key point I am making is that is is virtually impossible for a losing/break even player to have a winning record over this sample size. I have appx 50 k hands 10k at .5/1 30k at 1/2 and 10k at 2/4. I did not move up until I was beating the level for a respectable rate. I fully understand what people say about sample size and true win rate but from everything I have read even Doyle Brunson does not have enough hands to be certain he is a winning player. I am happy to say that I am 75% sure I am a winning player. There is no reason to apply the same stringency to my skills as a poker player as a scientist who is working on a cure for cancer. 95% is the standard taught to science majors in every university but it is just a standard for peer reviewed science not a law set in stone.

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Thanks for correcting me. As you may have noticed... English is my second language...

GOMOOJOOL

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

Drop down to Party Poker's $0.50/$1.00 limit tables and learn how to beat this game.

Scour the micro limit forum and pick up as much as you can.

Also, chase bonuses.

Never turn pro.

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

go to Poker Stars and play 5NL until you can beat the level for 30k hands or so. You have to move up slowly with poker. Its like riding a bike, learn the basics and move up, you cant jump up too fast.

also, A lot of players here including myself played poker because we really enjoy it, and eventually we turned into winning players and use it as a large source of income. Dont dwell on trying to become a pro just try to learn something everyday and work on your game.

Re: After reading \'My failure as a poker pro (very long)\' by Ten7offsu
 

What books have you read? Can you explain gap theory to someone else? How often do you cold call two bets?

I would suggest moving down in limits. The 1/2 game on PP is crazy easy. Play three tables at once. Read / Study and then give yourself several months to evaluate. Post hands here and get advice.

I agree with the reading that Poker is more closely related to Chess than pure IQ. Chess requires you to analyze data not create it. The keys to sucess are study & experience.

B-