I was wrong, you were right, but that's why i joined 2+2, 80K hands... - Page 4

mmcd · #31 10-31-2005, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
congratulations. i am have played far less hands and am down far more money. please keep your bragging to yourself from now on.

[/ QUOTE ]

#32 10-31-2005, 01:15 PM

I don't understand this....

Victor · #33 10-31-2005, 01:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this....

[/ QUOTE ]

it means you arent doing very bad and you will do way worse in the future even if you are the best player in the world.

btw, did you just jump in the 30-60 or did you work your way up? have you played any shorthanded? you might be better served to play at lower stakes and develop your game more before you try to play at the higher level.

#34 10-31-2005, 01:45 PM

I played 5-20 limit for about one month, then I played 15-30 for 8 months, and i've been playing 30-60 for about three months....

that is the extent of my poker life

The 9K loss isn't devastating. It's the small losses before that coupled with the last 16 days that hit me hard. I kept 9K in PP to play and wiped it smooth out, and then some. I'm sure i'll have larger swings than this in my days, but this isn't about the swings- it's me saying I'm scaling back to 15-30, and vowing to improve my game before I even do that. I played 80K hands and couldnt win a small bet. I dont belong at those limits, not yet.

Lestat · #35 10-31-2005, 01:49 PM

I'm not sure about the 700,000 number, but I am sure that you have a much larger edge in your live games than any of us do online. This means you don't need nearly as many as hands to arrive at conclusions about your game.

Lestat · #36 10-31-2005, 01:51 PM

Well you still proved many people (including me?), wrong about one thing:

In turns out you are humble enough to one day become a very good player. Admitting mistakes is a good first step. gl.

mikelow · #37 10-31-2005, 01:55 PM

Really, I would think 80,000 hands would be enough of a sample size, that's got to be at least 800 hours of play or equivalent.

I know the fluctuations can be huge, even when your set is snapped off at the river (capped on flop and turn) by a two-outer, but to wait for 700,000 hands would suggest a standard deviation of 50-100 big bets per 100 hands.

Could it be that most limit poker is simply a game of chance?

BarronVangorToth · #38 10-31-2005, 02:37 PM

Something you should remember, as it might be helpful, is that a majority of posters on 2+2 couldn't run the 30 game for 80K hands and be, effectively, a break-even player.

So, while you're not up what you were after 10K, there are many many many that would like to be "even" after that long a stretch that I'm sure are down thousands and thousands.

15 ahoy.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

andyfox · #39 10-31-2005, 02:49 PM

"Could it be that most limit poker is simply a game of chance?"

IIRC, mike l. once claimed that. My feeling is that it's a game of chance in that, over the next few thousand hands, the best player in the world might be a net loser. But there's no way the worst player in the world will be a net winner.

I can tell you whether the core group of players in my limit game will be winners or losers in the next year with a very high degree of accuracy.

#40 10-31-2005, 03:06 PM

I dont like losing 9K anyless than the rest of you. But, the point is that I put myself in a situation where defeat was not beyond me and I had a closed minded approach to my game, both of which have now resulted in me taking time off to analyze my play and gain further insight into the game before I go back to the 15-30 tables.

Why i decided to go from 5-10 to 15-30 to 30-60 in a 12 month period.....well i know why, but that's beside the point....it was too fast.....way too fast.....I'll still play higher when i'm in Vegas, because, my record there is good enough to warrant it, however, I am not ready for the 30 on PP.