Party NL Tables

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
Please do me a favor and keep the hostility in your responses to a minimum. If you don't agree with me and a majority of the more experienced NL posters here at 2+2, then that's fine. I guarantee if you start a new thread about this matter (asking how many buy-ins is recommended for NL play, as well as how many hands is representative of a good sample), your hypothesis will be in the minority.

In time, experience will teach you a thing or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

knowing nothing about the number of hands i've played or my experience as a NL player, your comments are at best misguided, so i will give you the benefit of the doubt and take them as such.

As of late I've seen the vast majority of the board disagreeing with you. Moreover i have not recently seen any positive contributions aside from the now requisite heckling at people with less than 1M hands played.

experience has taught me a thing or two, specifically it has taught me to be open to new ideas and to amend my own when logic and empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

perhaps even now experience is trying to teach you something...

fim

[cornell2005]

sorry but its just not a debateable topic. when you push more edges your variance per 100 hands is way higher than if you sit and wait for 65/35 edges. especially on party.

if you want a good explanation i recommend making a new topic in the mid/high forum and asking for opinions. however it should be pretty clear by now that the question is a no-brainer.

[Richie Rich]

Sorry, but your comment from another post...

[ QUOTE ]
you dont need any more than 10K hands to get a good figure of your winrate and you need WAY more than 50K hands to get accurate numbers for individual hands

[/ QUOTE ]

...indicates that you don't have enough "real" experience as you may think.

Also, the fact that others may agree or disagree with my posts/opinions in not indicative of whether or not I am a good player. You should know that. In fact, my level of play has actually evolved somewhat significantly (for the better) over the past 4 months, as have my returns. But I did not come to this conclusion after playing 10K hands. Nor after 20K hands.

Anyways, glad to hear that you're open to new ideas. Perhaps another experienced (and more respected) NL 2+2'er can offer their thoughts re: (1) min buy-ins, & (2) representative sample sizes.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry but its just not a debateable topic. when you push more edges your variance per 100 hands is way higher than if you sit and wait for 65/35 edges. especially on party.

if you want a good explanation i recommend making a new topic in the mid/high forum and asking for opinions. however it should be pretty clear by now that the question is a no-brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still disagree. provide an analogy in which fewer instances of greater magnitude provide less varaince than more instances of smaller magnitude.

fim

[fimbulwinter]

they already have:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...;o=14&vc=1

Are you asking for a counterexample that is on the first page of the forum because you didnt think i read any other threads?

As for sample size, i said 10K is fine to get an estimate of your winrate. if the difference between 10 and 12bb/100 is huge to you, then you'll certainly need many, many more, but that in and of itself is worthless as your game is constantly evolving and getting better.

this is the last i'll say on this topic, as it's obvious the discussion is only now relevant to you and me;

nobody should play poker with less than 80 buyins in tow so that they can feel warm and snuggly inside and be just that much more sure that they won't go broke. we'll also all play 100K hands at each level before moving up because that way we're SURE within .1BB/100 that we're beating the game and can love ourselves even that much more.

fimbulwinter the inexperienced, uneducated, losing poker player signing off...

[LokiV]

[ QUOTE ]
300 big blinds is 3 buyins at pokerstars, and 6 at party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to BIG BETS, which according to pokertracker is 2x the big blind.

The 300bb rule refers to BIG BETS. Correct?

[Stingy]

I'm playing NL50 now and have taken stabs at NL100. The beats are still iminant. I see almost the same caliber of players that i ran into at the NL25 tables. Gotta get used to it and stick to value betting. Sry dude,

[Triumph36]

It seems like a very simple concept.

A player who pushes every edge is going to lose more buyins quicker. They are more likely to lose every hand, and they are more likely to go on streaks of both winning and losing. A 'nut-peddler' is only going to go all-in when he thinks he has by far the best of it, and so he's going to win those hands more than 70% of the time.

Take the extreme example of a player who only goes all in when he thinks he has the way the best of it (65%, let's say), and a player who goes all in with 51% edges. Over 6 all ins, the odds that both players bust is .35^6 for the 'nut-peddler' and .49^6. It's obvious which one is higher.

Not to mention that a player who 'pushes every edge' will often get their money in when they are well behind.

Don't ask for an analogy. Just examine the numbers.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
I thank everyone for their responses, the dialogue about buy-in's was nice to read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad I was able to instigate a mini flame war on my first day of posting!

[grouchie]

You accomplished something, and that's gotta be worth something no?

I'm interested to see what you can do on your 2nd day of posting. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]