Question For Live Players

[Footballguru 0]

So i started keeping track of my live sessions on 4.9.2009, in a great excel sheet thanks to Cwik. So now its 2 months later and I have logged 151 hours. I know variance goes alot slower live than online. How many hours do you guys consider adequate to judge, at the very least, whether you are a winning or losing player and moreover how many hours until you can actually find a somewhat reliable hourly win rate.If online players are reading this, i would guess that 150 hours is equal to about 5k hands or so.

[dead money 1]

So i started keeping track of my live sessions on 4.9.2009, in a great excel sheet thanks to Cwik. So now its 2 months later and I have logged 151 hours. I know variance goes alot slower live than online. How many hours do you guys consider adequate to judge, at the very least, whether you are a winning or losing player and moreover how many hours until you can actually find a somewhat reliable hourly win rate.If online players are reading this, i would guess that 150 hours is equal to about 5k hands or so.

Read Mark Blade's Professional Poker. It is very good pertaining to what to expect when you play seriously. It needs updating for internet poker, but it is still very good. Also, to answer your question, a cautious judgement would be about 2000 hours or about 2 years worth of results should suffice.

[Footballguru 0]

Read Mark Blade's Professional Poker. It is very good pertaining to what to expect when you play seriously. It needs updating for internet poker, but it is still very good. Also, to answer your question, a cautious judgement would be about 2000 hours or about 2 years worth of results should suffice.

thanks

[trystero 0]

lol 150 hours of live poker = ~5k handsBRUTAL

[Footballguru 0]

lol 150 hours of live poker = ~5k handsBRUTAL

not when your opponents suck so bad. Way more profitable than online with same BR, IMO.a typical 2/5 NL game live typically has a 25-35$ raise preflop with 2-5 callers. Also you can get reads on players waaay more easily live. Within 10 or 15 minutes of sitting down you know how to beat each player specifically, either by bluffing them or makign thin value bets.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I am a 100% live player and I completely micro-manage my results. "Sample Size" be damned. I don't care if I have a 2 hour session with 50-60 hands or 12 hour session with a few hundred, I analyze the details of my session results and play. I make notes on key hands and players and replay EVERYTHING looking for holes and opportunity for improvement. I will NEVER have the sample size to compare to an on-line player, so I need to work with what I do have. Each hand becomes relevant, if not statistically relevant. On-line guys laugh at the small number of hands we play, but it just means that each hand has that much more importance.

[Jam-Fly 8]

I am a 100% live player and I completely micro-manage my results. "Sample Size" be damned. I don't care if I have a 2 hour session with 50-60 hands or 12 hour session with a few hundred, I analyze the details of my session results and play. I make notes on key hands and players and replay EVERYTHING looking for holes and opportunity for improvement. I will NEVER have the sample size to compare to an on-line player, so I need to work with what I do have. Each hand becomes relevant, if not statistically relevant. On-line guys laugh at the small number of hands we play, but it just means that each hand has that much more importance.

That's quite a good and interesting point. It's a little like the guy who started playing 10+ tables at once. Many posters suggest he play <4 tables to begin with so as to learn the game better, but he claimed more tables->more hands->more experience->greatest understanding/learning of the game. I def think it's better to play fewer hands starting out and try to actually learn the game and beat it for the maximum, not just learn a system to get you a good hourly rate.

[mtdesmoines 3]

lol 150 hours of live poker = ~5k handsBRUTAL

True, but you just have to adjust to the game. I dunno how many games I see online that go:fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, raise, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, raise, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, raise, fold, 3bet, fold, fold, fold, fold, foldfold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, raise, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold ....If you can get 16 hands a minute, you can see a lot of hands.You can't beat the action of live poker. But it's a lot the same game;know where you are and what you have to do to get their chips (or keep yours).

I am a 100% live player and I completely micro-manage my results. "Sample Size" be damned. I don't care if I have a 2 hour session with 50-60 hands or 12 hour session with a few hundred, I analyze the details of my session results and play. I make notes on key hands and players and replay EVERYTHING looking for holes and opportunity for improvement. I will NEVER have the sample size to compare to an on-line player, so I need to work with what I do have. Each hand becomes relevant, if not statistically relevant. On-line guys laugh at the small number of hands we play, but it just means that each hand has that much more importance.

[TheDonk1989 0]

That's quite a good and interesting point. It's a little like the guy who started playing 10+ tables at once. Many posters suggest he play <4 tables to begin with so as to learn the game better, but he claimed more tables->more hands->more experience->greatest understanding/learning of the game. I def think it's better to play fewer hands starting out and try to actually learn the game and beat it for the maximum, not just learn a system to get you a good hourly rate.

It's an advantage to multitable, if your just starting to learn the game then you should play less and learn the game. But that's only if you don't know how to play.Multitabling will increase your profit. It's not good to multitable when your just starting to learn the game, but just because you multitable doesnt mean that you don't gain experience/learn the game.

[Canary3 1]

I would say the hours are irrelavent when considering a winrate. YOu need to figure how many hands you played per hour, which is going to vary more than you would think from session to session. I think you already know that 5k hands is not anywhere near enough to judge whether you are a winning player or not.good post by pot odds rac