I was wrong, you were right, but that's why i joined 2+2, 80K hands... - Page 6

#51 10-31-2005, 05:07 PM

That sounded bad in type. My point of focus was that the 30 in Vegas can be a soft enough game for me to have an edge worthy of me playing it instead of the 15. It is contradictory for me to say 5 for 6 and then talk about 10K vs. 80K online. I guess i'm saying I dont have an edge playing 30 online but if I do in a tourist and home game occasional player rich 30-60 in LV, I might as well play it.

elmo · #52 10-31-2005, 05:35 PM

70k hands really isn't that much. There is over a 1.1bb/100 different between my first 75k hands in the 30/60 and the next 68k. I have very little idea what my winrate will eventually converge to, and I've played 140k hands.

mmcd · #53 10-31-2005, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I kept 9K in PP to play and wiped it smooth out, and then some.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to regularly play the 30 game, you should probably keep a minimum of 20 on the site. That's not enough for a bankroll mind you, but it is what I would consider a reasonable amount for an immediate sort of "working" bankroll.

JTG51 · #54 10-31-2005, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you will know *something* after 8 years full time, but not the nut answer where you can say with real affirmation (or is it affirmity?) "im a $xx per hour player in that game". one would be off by more than anyone would like to accept having put in that sort of hard work for 8 years. it takes 10-15 years live to really reach a definitive conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike, I think you're hung up on this idea a little too much. Worrying about playing enough hands to definitively say you can win $X per hour is silly because by the time you've played that many hands the game is totally different than when you started, and your own play most likely is also. No one can ever say exactly how much they should earn in a game because the games constantly change.

And anyone that's good enough to beat a game should know well before 100,000 hands if they're a favorite in the game or not without even looking at their results.

mike l. · #55 10-31-2005, 07:03 PM

"And anyone that's good enough to beat a game should know well before 100,000 hands if they're a favorite in the game or not without even looking at their results."

wrong. anyone that's good enough and lucky enough to beat a game for 100k hands will at least sometimes be thinking he's a bigger favorite than he really is in a game or if he's run bad/played bad he will think he's not nearly as much as a favorite as he actually might really be.

see? all that matters is this: the long term is so long to worry about it is silly. playing your best (and that includes game selection) each hour of each session is all that ever matters. but how much you beat a game for in 50k hands doesnt mean much of anything.

JTG51 · #56 10-31-2005, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
see? all that matters is this: the long term is so long to worry about it is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that what I just said?

dankhank · #57 10-31-2005, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but how much you beat a game for in 50k hands doesnt mean much of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

other than it can change your standard of living

#58 10-31-2005, 07:37 PM

Not to mention when I walk into B's PR, I have to force myself to not try and pull a mike mcdermott in the HL section. Of course, insaneo put=your-whole BR-and-livelyhood- at risk game of choice would be the 300-600 not some whacky self dealt 25K buy in bs NL game.

Justin A · #59 10-31-2005, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"And anyone that's good enough to beat a game should know well before 100,000 hands if they're a favorite in the game or not without even looking at their results."

wrong. anyone that's good enough and lucky enough to beat a game for 100k hands will at least sometimes be thinking he's a bigger favorite than he really is in a game or if he's run bad/played bad he will think he's not nearly as much as a favorite as he actually might really be.

see? all that matters is this: the long term is so long to worry about it is silly. playing your best (and that includes game selection) each hour of each session is all that ever matters. but how much you beat a game for in 50k hands doesnt mean much of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the foundation of my new belief that downswings don't exist.

#60 10-31-2005, 11:22 PM

If your hand sample is infinite, then how could you really argue that downswings did exist? Excellent point. I'll tell myself that next time I have one....and try my hardest to believe it.