Should I be happy with 1.5 bb/100 at $5/10 Party game?

[MaxPower]

Yes, you should be happy. The first 25K hands I played in that game I was a net loser.

Rather than shoot for some arbitrary number, why don't you strive to constantly learn about poker and improve your play.

[LImitPlayer]

How can you say that those statements do not contradict each other?

If his 5% number is 100% correct or 100% wrong it does not change ther fact that those are confilcting statements.

Can you explain to me how it is "very doable" if only 5% of the people who play can beat it for that winrate?

That means 95 out 100 people fail to achieve that winrate.
How is that very doable?

What would make it very undoable?

Woulddn't the % be higher like 40-50% or so if it was very doable?

If 5% makes something very doable then what makes it hard?

[ QUOTE ]
It's widely recognized that only 10% (or fewer) of all poker players are winners. Yet it's also widely recognized (around 2+2 anyway) that it's incredibly easy to beat the low-limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats like saying take the top 20 poker players of all time or the top 20 "inserrt any game or sport you wish" players of all time giving them their own internet forum and let them talk about how easy it is to do such and such in their given sport or game.

Sure it's easy for them bout what about the other 2 billion people that attempt it?

There is a whole other world outside of 2 + 2]

[ QUOTE ]
Satisified - yes - happy - maybe - still room for improvement but I expect 2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.

2BB/100 is very doable


[/ QUOTE ]

The last time i checked being in the top 5% of ALL players is not a very doable thing in any sport or game regardless if it is poker or not.

Take the top 5% off all baseball, football, golf soccer, and chess players. Is achieving the skill they have in their sport or game "very doable?" Somehow I doubt it.

My point was not to debate what the needed winrate is to rank in the the top 5% of players but was to point out those to statemnets are conflicting.

[mikeyvegas]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain to me how it is "very doable" if only 5% of the people who play can beat it for that winrate?

That means 95 out 100 people fail to achieve that winrate.
How is that very doable?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the vast majority of people playing poker these days have not invested any time outside of a poker room (or on a poker site) to work on their game. This puts them at a great disadvatage to those that do take the time to learn the game.

[LImitPlayer]

So does that mean that If I put in the time and effort I can rank in the top 5% of all the basketball players in the world?

I wonder why so many people try and failto make the NBA if all they have to do is study and practice the game.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
So does that mean that If I put in the time and effort I can rank in the top 5% of all the basketball players in the world?

I wonder why so many people try and failto make the NBA if all they have to do is study and practice the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does making bad analogies make you feel intelligent?

[meep_42]

Do you really think the NBA is the top 5% of players?

I think it may be the top .5% of NCAA Div-I players over the past 10 years.

-d

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you say that those statements do not contradict each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a tempest in a teapot!

The post you're criticizing had an audience of one...a 2+2er who's already at 1.5. So the statement, as communicated to its intended recipient, is accurate. Addressed to a general audience, it would be contradictory.

Even addressed to the regular 2+2 community in general, the statement would not be entirely unreasonable, given that this community as a whole (excluding idiots like myself) is made up of higher-percentile players.

[elindauer]

Hi sthief,

While I agree with all your conclussions about the poster's concerns coming across as misguided, I'll point out that this statement:

[ QUOTE ]
at 25k ahnds you ahve absolutely no way of knowing your winrate or even a reasonable estimate of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

is quite far off. I suspect if pressed you would concede this, but if you really believe this, you are not being creative enough in your attempts to find this number.

- the confidence interval mechanism gives you a range which, while wide compared to the poster's concern over 1/2 a BB, is certainly better than "absolutely no way of knowing"
- you could compare your play to that of a much more experienced player, having him tell you where he would have played differently and estimating the impact on your winrate. I'd say you could use this method to come up with a very close guess at your winrate after perhaps as few as a few hundred hands (not to mention that you'd get better for having done it)
- you could look at other stats, like how often you are being dealt premium cards, how often your hands are holding up, etc and compare them to generally accepted numbers to get a feel for how well / poorly you are running.

etc.

Good luck.
Eric

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
So does that mean that If I put in the time and effort I can rank in the top 5% of all the basketball players in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm 6', and a decent player, but the more I think about it, I may already be in the top 5%.

[ QUOTE ]


I wonder why so many people try and failto make the NBA if all they have to do is study and practice the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, there are only about 500 players in the NBA. With a world population of over 6,000,000,000, you need to be a lot better than top 5% to make the NBA...

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you say that those statements do not contradict each other?

If his 5% number is 100% correct or 100% wrong it does not change ther fact that those are confilcting statements.

Can you explain to me how it is "very doable" if only 5% of the people who play can beat it for that winrate?

That means 95 out 100 people fail to achieve that winrate.
How is that very doable?

What would make it very undoable?

Woulddn't the % be higher like 40-50% or so if it was very doable?

If 5% makes something very doable then what makes it hard?

[ QUOTE ]
It's widely recognized that only 10% (or fewer) of all poker players are winners. Yet it's also widely recognized (around 2+2 anyway) that it's incredibly easy to beat the low-limit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats like saying take the top 20 poker players of all time or the top 20 "inserrt any game or sport you wish" players of all time giving them their own internet forum and let them talk about how easy it is to do such and such in their given sport or game.

Sure it's easy for them bout what about the other 2 billion people that attempt it?

There is a whole other world outside of 2 + 2]

[ QUOTE ]
Satisified - yes - happy - maybe - still room for improvement but I expect 2BB/100 puts you in the top 5% of all players.

2BB/100 is very doable


[/ QUOTE ]

The last time i checked being in the top 5% of ALL players is not a very doable thing in any sport or game regardless if it is poker or not.

Take the top 5% off all baseball, football, golf soccer, and chess players. Is achieving the skill they have in their sport or game "very doable?" Somehow I doubt it.

My point was not to debate what the needed winrate is to rank in the the top 5% of players but was to point out those to statemnets are conflicting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is my first statement (only 10% of poker players are winners) correct? Hint: Go look at Jackpot Jay's last column from espn.com. He cites 2 separate sources from 2 separate online rooms who say they have 8% and 7% winners during the year)

Is my second statement (it's very easy to beat the low-limit games) correct? This one is more subjective, but a few years ago, Clark came up with a very short "cheat-sheet" of instructions for his g/f, and I bet if they were followed exactly, they would produce a winning player at the low limits. So since almost everyone can follow written directions, it stands to reason that almost anyone can become a winner.