How long have you played break even poker?

[Greg J]

I guess I was thinking that at the super easy .5/1 tables I should be crushing them for something around 3.5/100. If I am only playing 2bb/100 at .5/1 that means I will be a fish at higher limits.

Anyway, when I said I was playing tred water poker it was contextual for the super soft game I'm playing.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Baby jesus would weep before the end. *shudder*

[/ QUOTE ]

Gawdamnit stop using my baby jesus phrase. You make him sad.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I was thinking that at the super easy .5/1 tables I should be crushing them for something around 3.5/100. If I am only playing 2bb/100 at .5/1 that means I will be a fish at higher limits.

Anyway, when I said I was playing tred water poker it was contextual for the super soft game I'm playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

A player who beats .5/1$ for 2BB/100 will do fine at higher limits. One who beats it for 3.5+ is a good/great player.

[jasonHoldEm]

I'll let you know when I get back to even. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[mrjim]

I'm currently trying to break into the 5/10 game and after about 15k hands I'm up <.5/100... Rakeback is the only thing making me any money.

[soundgarden4]

With all these postings about 20, 30 and 40+K runs of breakeven or worse poker by what I’m sure are winning players, is 100K hands enough to really determine whether you’re a winning player or not? Should it be closer to 150K or even 200K hands to really get a good grasp on your true win rate? Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like a supposed winning player just starting to track hands with a sufficient bankroll could easily go through 50-80K hands just breaking even or making a slim profit like
.2-.3BB/100 at moderate levels like 2/4 or 3/6. Just wondering how one really knows how well they’re doing and how long that really takes? Thanks for the input.

Kevin

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, when I said I was playing tred water poker it was contextual for the super soft game I'm playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it's soft doesn't mean you can't run bad.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
is 100K hands enough to really determine whether you’re a winning player or not? Should it be closer to 150K or even 200K hands to really get a good grasp on your true win rate?

[/ QUOTE ]

100K is usually more than enough to determine with 99% confidence that you're a winning (or losing) player.

To get a good grasp on your "true" win rate, you do need much more.

Search the archives for posts on calculating your "true" win rate with various confidence intervals.

[tripdad]

wasn't schneids in the hole(fairly significantly so) after 40k hands at $15/30?

cheers!

[jfresh]

not sure but this thread is interesting... kind of helpful to see that some of the most respected 2+2 players go through 10k+ break even streaks