discuss

[fyodor]

mike I am not an expert on the mathematics of winrate but I do know that it is not a constant. It will change as you get better. It will change if you change games. It will change if your competion gets better.

What I was focusing on was this part of your post:

[ QUOTE ]
luck is a much bigger factor than previously thought

[/ QUOTE ]

What is luck in poker? My understanding of luck is beating the odds i.e. sucking out. That only lasts so long. The odds will catch up.

What is your definition of luck in poker?

[Turning Stone Pro]

Cheer up, man. I have a week-long jury trial starting Monday where my guy is facing up to 25 years in prison if I lose.

Cheer up, man.

TSP

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Cheer up, man. I have a week-long jury trial starting Monday where my guy is facing up to 25 years in prison if I lose.

Cheer up, man.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, that guy is really running bad.

[mike l.]

"Unlike you, I actually know exactly how many hours I played and exactly how much I won."

so do i unless you were lying to me. 500 hours = nothing. not even a drop in the bucket of what we know as long term.

[mike l.]

"What is your definition of luck in poker?"

the thing you need to rely on when the game you are playing is so long (if we think of all sessions tied together as one long game) that you have to play absurdly long to have a firm grasp on your true hourly rate. luck = short term variance to the positive, also know as running good. bad luck = short term variance to the negative, also known as running bad.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
"Unlike you, I actually know exactly how many hours I played and exactly how much I won."

so do i unless you were lying to me. 500 hours = nothing. not even a drop in the bucket of what we know as long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your memory is a little off about the hours, but that's not the point.

The point is that you wouldn't have to whine and moan about the huge luck factor if you had *any* freaking idea of your winrate in any and all games in which you play. But you have none. Zilch. Zippo. So instead, you need to come here and hope the math guys can steer you in the right direction. The problem is, you still have no idea how it relates to you because your winrate and standard deviation at every single limit/game/location are a complete and utter mystery to you.

Not keeping records is for losers. So is whining about luck.

[fyodor]

If this is all about you wanting to know your true winrate well than give it up. You never will. After you've played your last hand of poker ever you can look back and see what your winrate was.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
If this is all about you wanting to know your true winrate well than give it up. You never will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh. One has to have the self-discipline to keep records to have any shot at that.

[mike l.]

"The point is that you wouldn't have to whine and moan about the huge luck factor if you had *any* freaking idea of your winrate in any and all games in which you play.'

if come on here and ask a math guy, hey i played 500 hours of live play last year (and that was the figure you quited me) and won $X, what do you think they would correctly laugh and say gee that's just about meaningless.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
"Other than making a fool of himself, I mean."

so far no one has come up w/ a really good solid answer to why im wrong so who's the fool now?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the one making the contrary statement; the burden of proof is on you.

Also, and this could be a misconception, but it does not sound like you have really studied probability and statistics. You point to analyses by others, but you really don't seem to do any quantitative analysis yourself.

A book you may really enjoy is "Conned Again Watson" by Collin Bruce. It is a great introduction to a wide array of topics every gambler should understand.