win rate cash game sample size

LaurenLauren Red Chipper Posts: 250 ✭✭
edited December 2017 in General Concepts
can someone tell me a good sample size of hours played for me to get a realistic idea of my win rate?? i have only been keeping records of session length for 90 hours of play, but this seems like not nearly enough.....
«1

Comments

  • Brad CBrad C Red Chipper Posts: 181 ✭✭
    I know in online it's been recommended that in order to get a meaningful sample size you need anywhere from 15-50k hands.

    To get this live it's going to take you 500-1600 hours of play.

    This is partly why I switched to playing online micro limits, because you can approach the game much more scientifically.

    Would be curious what the more experienced players say here but it almost seems like it's not that reasonable to get a scientifically valid sample size live bc it takes so long that when you do get those 1k+ hours in, your play will have changed so much that it's no longer relevant

    Interesting question. Don't know the answer
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭✭
    You can explore some math here -http://pokerdope.com
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 1,151 ✭✭✭✭
    At the end of the day it really makes no difference. I understand the idea of wanting to know your actual winrate but the truth is that it will always be in flux and you will never really have a statistically accurate number.

    I would suggest that focusing on your play and the play of your opponents is a better area to spend your time on. If you can explain in detail why you are making the plays you are and how this results in you achieving the kind of win rate you desire you would be better served long term.

    The desire to define an accurate win rate is sort of a Red Herring in my opinion.
    Twitter = @ChipXtractor
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 503 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2017
    Octavian I wrote: »
    If you can't manage to beat a game after 500 hours you are not going to make it and the more you try the more you lose if your are somehow in the red at that time.

    After 500 hours or 16-16.5 thousands hands even if you have some losing sessions or winning sessions after, that lost/win thing will spread so thin over the number of hours that the winrate will fluctuate very little. Well, small flux winrate is statistically accurate. Let's say you get $50/hour with a standard deviation of ±$1.5. Well, what's the difference if you have $51.5 or $48.5 per hour. You are a winning player. But if you lose after 500 hours there's no magic way to turn that around and become a winning player because of the sheer number of hours you will have to win huge amounts of money to bring all that mess back into the winning side and have a respected winrate.

    500 hours is a tiny sample, and 16k hands is a tiny sample. You would need some convincing math to show me that a $1.5 SD would make sense with a $50 hourly.

  • LaurenLauren Red Chipper Posts: 250 ✭✭
    Hi there, thx for the input, i think 500 hours sounds reasonable for a minimum to get a stable number... i disagree that it is not important

    At a minimum it provides a reliable way to estimate future income....







  • Chris SChris S Red Chipper Posts: 60 ✭✭
    There is a lot of variance in poker. It's possible to run good or run bad over the course of 500 hours in a live game. 16k hands is nothing, online players can easily reach 1 million hands in a year.

    The reality is it's very hard to play enough hands live to get a true sample size to calculate your win rate.
  • Joseph FJoseph F Red Chipper Posts: 593 ✭✭
    Starting to, more and more, like the idea of focusing on playing online and dipping into poker clubs now and then.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭✭
    Octavian I wrote: »
    Let's say you get $50/hour with a standard deviation of ±$1.5.

    good luck finding any player(winning or losing) with a SD less than 1 blind!

  • eugeniusjreugeniusjr Red Chipper Posts: 377 ✭✭✭
    Usually I judge whether a player is a winner, and other characteristics, in an hour or two.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,083 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Lauren wrote: »
    Hi there, thx for the input, i think 500 hours sounds reasonable for a minimum to get a stable number... i disagree that it is not important

    At a minimum it provides a reliable way to estimate future income....

    Hey @Lauren

    naturally - everybody wants to estimate their win rate. But early in your playing career - I agree with those that say that it's meaningless.... for several reasons:

    1.) unless you play in a home game with the same opponents - there's no way that you replicate the table dynamics consistently. one night, you'll be against a tight passive table that folds to everything and only calls when you're beat. Another night, you'll be against loose aggressive players that never fold. And yet another night you could be against tight aggressive players where you're able to get some respect with your 3-bets. 3 different situations. 3 different winrates.

    2.) winrates are estimated by looking backwards.
    Every session you play - you're getting better (I assume since your on RCP).
    So the December Lauren is a better player than the August Lauren.
    Meaning if when you play today - hopefully you're not making as many mistakes and you're not leaving money on the table. so your past winrate is just that... something from the past. It doesn't predict the future.

    3.) along with #1 where your opponents are different with each session - your distribution of cards will be different. In a 1.5 hour session - I was dealt AA three times! On my next 8 hour session, the best pocket pair I saw was 55 and had to check/fold the flop. Hand distributions will change dramatically - and it's easy for you to go "card dead" or be "hit over the head with hands" for weeks at a time.

    the more serious you become about poker - the more you will realize that expecting a win rate based on the past can only help cause you to go on tilt.

    Focus on making the best decisions at every session - and let the winrates be what they may. Do this - and you will be a happy & productive player.

    GL
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭✭
    Wiki_Leaks wrote: »
    500 hours is a tiny sample, and 16k hands is a tiny sample.
    I know this 500 hours is arbitrary, but it seems like it would suffice if your edge in the game is large enough. For example, if you get to play with 8 beginners everyday and you're a professional player, then if you're down after 500 hours, there's obviously a problem. However, if you play against those same 8 beginners, and now you're a beginner as well, your edge would be smaller and therefore it would be very possible that 500 hours isn't a good indicator. Determining whether you actually hold an edge is another story. My examples only help us define the extremes.

    This conversation reminds me of a tourney table I was watching recently in Vegas. At the table were Jake Schindler, Dan Coleman, Jason Koon, Brian Rast, Stefan Schillhabel, Michael Ruanne, and a few others. As I stood there, I was scratching my head thinking "Who has an edge in this game?" "How long would they need to play in order to figure that out?" I still have no idea--but I'm sure it would take a while.

  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,083 ✭✭✭✭✭
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    This conversation reminds me of a tourney table I was watching recently in Vegas. At the table were Jake Schindler, Dan Coleman, Jason Koon, Brian Rast, Stefan Schillhabel, Michael Ruanne, and a few others. As I stood there, I was scratching my head thinking "Who has an edge in this game?"
    @berkey11 has the edge here.
    he's that good that even if he's not at the table, he's still got an edge.

    scarey when you think about it...
  • Wiki_LeaksWiki_Leaks Red Chipper Posts: 503 ✭✭✭
    Octavian I wrote: »
    Wiki_Leaks wrote: »
    Octavian I wrote: »
    If you can't manage to beat a game after 500 hours you are not going to make it and the more you try the more you lose if your are somehow in the red at that time.

    After 500 hours or 16-16.5 thousands hands even if you have some losing sessions or winning sessions after, that lost/win thing will spread so thin over the number of hours that the winrate will fluctuate very little. Well, small flux winrate is statistically accurate. Let's say you get $50/hour with a standard deviation of ±$1.5. Well, what's the difference if you have $51.5 or $48.5 per hour. You are a winning player. But if you lose after 500 hours there's no magic way to turn that around and become a winning player because of the sheer number of hours you will have to win huge amounts of money to bring all that mess back into the winning side and have a respected winrate.

    500 hours is a tiny sample, and 16k hands is a tiny sample. You would need some convincing math to show me that a $1.5 SD would make sense with a $50 hourly.

    If you call 500 hours a tiny sample you are not a player. What we need to know and find out is going to be revealed in that 500 hours. If you need more then that to find out if you are a winning player or not, I can tell you that you are NOT. If you are in RED after 500 hours you will never come to even again. As I said before, anyone who is losing after 500 hours is probably kidding themselves when they blame their bad cards or bad luck, because it is much more likely they are not playing well enough to win. And anyone that tell us that 500 hours is not enough to show us how well we play and what's our winrate within a reason, is also kidding himself because that person is not a winning player. Actually, he's not even a player. He may be a professor, or a scientist, a 9-to-5 specialist or a clerk in some obscure little office but for sure he's not a hard core poker player.

    All real poker players, all grinders and all hard working players that go into the gutter every day around this country to different games know very well what I'm talking about. They all are our brothers in spirit and blood. I feel for them with all my heart because I know,...,goddamned,.. I know how hard this game is.
    eugeniusjr wrote: »
    Usually I judge whether a player is a winner, and other characteristics, in an hour or two.

    There is a huge difference between a sample which determines whether ones win rate >=0 and what ones win rate is.

    I would agree you can decipher relatively quickly whether someone is a winning player in the game by watching them play. This is irrelevant to OPs question though.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭
    I look at this way:

    500 hours live should be enough to be a correlative indicator of how well you have played over the past 500 hours. BUT, as @kagey noted, it is NOT a reliable indicator of future success.

    Say, however, that you have <pick a number -- 5, 7, 12> such 500 hour chunks in a row with a similar win-rate, then it becomes a more reliable predictor of your win-rate in the next 500 hours.

    But, still not all definitive.

    I chunk my records differently.

    I was going through life's normal challenges a few years ago; I bracketed those off in my record sheet. I read "The Course" a couple of years ago, and I put a page break in my spreadsheet there. I took a purposeful break to reexamine my poker game based on my experiences a while back; that was the start of a new page on my spreadsheet. I made some purposeful life decisions that affected positively my financial life (hell, yeah, that affects your poker mindset!!), and I started a new page there.

    Yes, I can go back and look at my lifetime winrate, and I can go back and see my winrate from 2017, 2016, etc. But, I find it much more valuable to use the big poker markers and life markers, as examples, that I listed above and my win-rate following those are correlative factors not for how much I am winning but rather for whether I am / my game is in a good place and whether I am improving, stagnating, or even playing more poorly than before (i.e., tough times in personal life).

    Once I identify the factors that help me play better (e.g., reading a helpful poker book, coaching, re-examining my game from top to bottom, getting my life finances set), I can usually see a consistent upswing my in win-rate. So, it is THOSE things on which I should remain focused, not the bottom line. The win-rate -- be it over 200 hours, 500 hours, 10,000 hours -- ultimately remains primarily a function of those factors.

    I'll include @kagey's caveat: 500 hours, while likely a reliable indicator of how your playing, is still subject to real discrepancies or variances. As long as these are used as "correlative indicators" rather than "predictors" of future success -- and you understand WHY you are winning more, losing more, or holding steady -- then they have their real place as valuable information tools.

    In sum, they give you facts but they don't give you reasons.
  • LaurenLauren Red Chipper Posts: 250 ✭✭
    thx octavian, i am curious about your discussion of bb per hour going down as you move up in stakes.... is this an example you made up, or have you experienced this?? i am asking because i haven't moved up from 1/3 yet... i had just imagined that my winrate , bb per hour would stay the same as i don't anticipate the 2/5 games i have access to where i live have a vastly more talented player pool......


    as a cash player i feel very disadvantaged in being able to dissect and analyze my game because we don't have the type of data that is available to online players.......i think using winrate and applying different variables to it could be very useful... for example... i am much better (and more comfortable) at 100bb poker than i am at deep stack poker , 300bb or more....... i think isolating win rate records for these two conditions could be helpful to me....

  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭✭
    Octavian I wrote: »
    This BS that I've heart many times before that the 5/10 is a different game and the players are way better is all a myth and an illusion. Actually the bigger game have even more weaker and worst players but with more money to spend to show-off who act pretentiously and love to publicly parades themselves with their possessions.

    I wish this was still true.

    At least near me the quaility of the 5/10 action varies but way too oftne the game is 6-7 pros, 2-3 OMCs. And the bigger games(which I don't play yet) look to me to be more like 6-8 Pros and one spot.
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,007 ✭✭✭✭
    Octavian I wrote: »
    kenaces wrote: »
    Octavian I wrote: »
    This BS that I've heart many times before that the 5/10 is a different game and the players are way better is all a myth and an illusion. Actually the bigger game have even more weaker and worst players but with more money to spend to show-off who act pretentiously and love to publicly parades themselves with their possessions.

    I wish this was still true.

    At least near me the quaility of the 5/10 action varies but way too oftne the game is 6-7 pros, 2-3 OMCs. And the bigger games(which I don't play yet) look to me to be more like 6-8 Pros and one spot.

    I don't know where you play, but I played many time in different locals around this country and didn't find anything special that the local provincial "specialists" do. Of course Vegas has the easiest and the most games, that's why most pros are living and playing here in this huge market that supply fresh players every day.

    Don't be afraid and be under the illusion that the pros are doing something you don't know how is to be done. They absolutely don't know more then you do as a RCP member. Do you really believe that the best pro from that bunch of 6-7 duds you describe know anything more and better to do than you? - No, they don't

    What special skills they have that you don't have yet?

    Do you play 5/10NLH+
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2017
    @Octavian I I think I see the point you're trying to make. In my local games, the 2/5 and 5/10 games attract players that can't beat a weak 1/2 player pool on a good day. Some of these players just have more money and they want to gamble for an amount that will stimulate them. I'm certain each player pool will have these types of players floating around. However, these players will also attract the good players to the higher stakes games. So, like @kenaces points out, especially at the 5/10 level, these games tend to be comprised of several stronger players--and by strong--he doesn't mean players that are beating a weak 1/2 lineup. So, a winning 1/2 player isn't able to just sit down in a 5/10 game and play the way they play at 1/2--they'll get destroyed. These players already know their "tricks". So, they'll need to develop a new plan to counter these opponents.
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 1,151 ✭✭✭✭
    Octavian I wrote: »
    Actually all NL games are 1/2 type games where the big-blinds is double then the small-blind.

    Incorrect.

    Twitter = @ChipXtractor
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 3,170 ✭✭✭✭✭
    All he's saying is that there are games like 5/5 and 10/10 that many of us play in.

    Let's save the petty bickering for what percentage of a range is supposed to go from street to street, that seems very worthwhile.
«1

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file