After reading 'My failure as a poker pro (very long)' by Ten7offsuit - Page 5

stone_7 · #41 08-16-2005, 10:46 AM

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.

Danenania · #42 08-16-2005, 11:01 AM

Wrong.

SpicyF · #43 08-16-2005, 01:01 PM

[ 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....

MaxPower · #44 08-16-2005, 02:34 PM

[ 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.

aargh57 · #45 08-16-2005, 03:26 PM

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.

stone_7 · #46 08-16-2005, 06:16 PM

[ 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.

#47 08-16-2005, 11:06 PM

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

GOMOOJOOL

zephed · #48 08-17-2005, 05:24 AM

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.

LethalRose · #49 08-30-2005, 03:37 AM

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.

#50 08-30-2005, 02:50 PM

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-