etip 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 For awhile now I've had it in my head that 100 hours of playing no limit cash games is enough to predict somewhat accurately how well I can do in the long term at the limits I play.Now that I've played that many, I can't find anything online to back up that thought!Does anyone know of a certain number (of hours), specifically for no limit holdem cash games, that is enough to predict long term results?Any math majors?I tried searching here and google, maybe I just suck, but... thanks in advance for any input...BTW this is live, not online (1/2 as many hands/hour). Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 For awhile now I've had it in my head that 100 hours of playing no limit cash games is enough to predict somewhat accurately how well I can do in the long term at the limits I play.Now that I've played that many, I can't find anything online to back up that thought!Does anyone know of a certain number (of hours), specifically for no limit holdem cash games, that is enough to predict long term results?Any math majors?I tried searching here and google, maybe I just suck, but... thanks in advance for any input...BTW this is live, not online (1/2 as many hands/hour).play 20,000 hands and ull start to get a feel, play 100,000 hands and ull have a better feel for your results...100 hours isnt near enough Link to post Share on other sites
etip 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 no.Who are you saying "no" to? Cause if it's to me, thanks for your brilliant insight...play 20,000 hands and ull start to get a feel, play 100,000 hands and ull have a better feel for your results...100 hours isnt near enoughThanks Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Yes, you. Simple answer to a general question. Besides, why say more when the guy ahead of me answered you also. I'm simply corroborating his response. Link to post Share on other sites
etip 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Author Share Posted March 23, 2006 Yes, you. Simple answer to a general question. Besides, why say more when the guy ahead of me answered you also. I'm simply corroborating his response.Oh ok, I just wanted to find out if you were disagreeing w/ the other poster. Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 play 20,000 hands and ull start to get a feel, play 100,000 hands and ull have a better feel for your results...100 hours isnt near enoughObviously the more hands you have the better.However, I think you'll have a pretty good picture at about 8000 hands.Just know that there is some +/- to the numbers.hmm....100 hours live is only 2000-3000 hands...not even close. Link to post Share on other sites
Vman96 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 On another forum recently, I responded to a NL online player that was playing $2/$4 NL and over 36,000 hands had won $11k. (which is about 8bb/100 at $2/$4) He was wondering if this was a long enough sample to convince him that he was a profitable player. Using some ball-park numbers for variance...even after 36k hands, there was still a 3.5% chance he was truly a break-even player or worse. And about a 20% chance that he is truly only a 4bb/100 player or worse (The minimum I would want to make at 2/4 NL if it is to become my "career"). So even after 36,000 hands...It was quite likely that he is a winning player, but it isn't guaranteed. And since 36,000 hands is 1000 hours live....I definitely believe you don't have a big enough sample yet. Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 On another forum recently, I responded to a NL online player that was playing $2/$4 NL and over 36,000 hands had won $11k. (which is about 8bb/100 at $2/$4) He was wondering if this was a long enough sample to convince him that he was a profitable player. Using some ball-park numbers for variance...even after 36k hands, there was still a 3.5% chance he was truly a break-even player or worse. And about a 20% chance that he is truly only a 4bb/100 player or worse (The minimum I would want to make at 2/4 NL if it is to become my "career"). So even after 36,000 hands...It was quite likely that he is a winning player, but it isn't guaranteed. And since 36,000 hands is 1000 hours live....I definitely believe you don't have a big enough sample yet.Yeah...I don't think anybody is going to say 100 live hours is enuf.But you made me think...it's probably more necessary to play more hands in NL to figure things out than in limit. My reply was based on limit (since that's what I specialize in) so take that into consideration if you're a NL player. Link to post Share on other sites
Vman96 0 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Yeah...I don't think anybody is going to say 100 live hours is enuf.But you made me think...it's probably more necessary to play more hands in NL to figure things out than in limit. My reply was based on limit (since that's what I specialize in) so take that into consideration if you're a NL player.Youre absolutely right. You will need a lot larger sample for NL....where standard deviations for online play at least are often 70-80 bb/100 (35-40 BB/100)....where in limit they usually are 15-20 BB/100. Link to post Share on other sites
fleung22 1 Posted March 23, 2006 Share Posted March 23, 2006 Youre absolutely right. You will need a lot larger sample for NL....where standard deviations for online play at least are often 70-80 bb/100 (35-40 BB/100)....where in limit they usually are 15-20 BB/100.Hey Vman...love the bob barker Link to post Share on other sites
etip 0 Posted March 24, 2006 Author Share Posted March 24, 2006 Just to be clear, I have been playing poker for almost two years now, profitably, so I'm pretty sure I'm a profitable player long-term --I'm more concerned with predicting an accurate long-term hourly rate than predicting whether I will be profitable or not. Just to be clear, I have been playing poker for almost two years now, profitably, so I'm pretty sure I'm a profitable player long-term --I'm more concerned with predicting an accurate long-term hourly rate than predicting whether I will be profitable or not.I guess it all ties together but -- I'm not worried about whether I am indeed profitable, it is just the amount of profitability that I am worried about.Profitability. Heh.Anyway, thanks for the replies!Just to be clear, I have been playing poker for almost two years now, profitably, so I'm pretty sure I'm a profitable player long-term --I'm more concerned with predicting an accurate long-term hourly rate than predicting whether I will be profitable or not.I guess it all ties together but -- I'm not worried about whether I am indeed profitable, it is just the amount of profitability that I am worried about.Profitability. Heh.Anyway, thanks for the replies!Quoting yourself is weird. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now