Has nothing to do with that discussion? The sample size is 63 games. It's on the small side, but it's not nothing. I started with "FWIW", so take the data however you like. Since there wasn't much actual data being contributed, I thought contributing something else to add to the other baselines had some benefit. It's much better than "I think it's this because ... just because I think so". I don't think it's a Bible, but I don't see it ever dropping to 1% or 5% either and it does seem to be in line with the other limited data that was provided. Also, from the statistic classes I've taken in grad school and at work, most of them consider 100 a reasonable sample size and 63 is not that far off.

I do concede, though, that the multitabling aspect of online could skew the results since live players can only one table. But, since Bovada has a 4 table CAP, that limits or dampens the effect compared to a site like Stars or Merge.

Someone smart like Nate Silver could probably come up with a good estimate for this. I personally feel the number of players NOT losing money online is around 25%. 10% or less seems ridiculous.

Lol limit holdem. How old are you Victor, like 50? I'll admit, I do love playing drunk 3/6 limit in AC from time to time.

What are you talking about? 100 games is not a reasonable sample size in poker, and 63 is way off from 100.

Not to mention you're talking about a live home game and we're talking about online poker lol.

I'm not an expert in the field, but that statement is an oversimplification for a statistics problem. I generally disagree that 63 sessions of live poker each varying in length from 4-10 hours is nothing and if I ever get 100 sessions, I would consider that a reasonable sample.

Maybe someone with some knowledge could calculate the % of confidence that 63 sessions or 100 sessions is worth. IIRC 95% confidence was what we aimed for in grad school.

And, yes, I know we're talking about online. But, aside from the multitabling aspect, the concept of winning and losing poker doesn't change.

What about the fact that you see 3x(probably closer to 5x since it's a home game) more hands an hour? Or that players online are on average much better than live players? Or that you can use HUDs, tracking software, equity programs, etc?

Let's say you averaged 20 hands per hour a your home game for an average session of 10 hours(which is the maximum hours you say so already being optimistic). That gives you 20,000 hands (and keep in mind this is for ALL players, not an individual) over 100 sessions.

20,000 hands doesn't tell you if you are a winning poker player or not.

I can tell you with 100% confidence without doing any math that your 100 session log has 0% merit in a discussion about win rates and % of winners.

I can appreciate your point of view, and rereading my comment it sounded arrogant. I didn't mean for that. Its just I don't consider even 100 games of like poker much and heres why. Lets say you hosted 100 games and we average it to 7.5 hours each. You see 25-30 hands per hour at best.. 30 hands x 7.5 hours each. 225 hands per game hosted. or 22,500 hands after the hundred games total. Imo That is still a small sample. And less then I play a month. Thats less then any grinder puts in a month online. For accurate results I think a big sample is in order. Thats all.

Online I play HU mostly, I see 150 hands per hour per table. So in one hour online I play as many hands as 2 of your tournaments.

Same though process PLOhigh, I didn't see your post

That's a different question and problem than the one we are discussing. Agree to disagree.

And they say online poker is dead.

Couple of thoughts: for live play, that's a decent sample size IMO. Sure, it's debateable, but again, it's not nothing. It's surely something. We can debate the confidence level.

The next thought is that this is NOT a winrate problem. The reason people need a ton of hands to try to estimate a winrate is because they are trying to gain confidence from ONE, specific number. The requirement to determine if someone is simply winning or losing is not nearly as rigid.

This is a question of what % of people make money. That's it. Not the exact winrate % for a given player. I don't think the sample size needs to be incredibly big to have an idea of what % of people usually profit.

After 22,500 hands of live play, I think for any one player, we can say with confidence that they are either a winner or loser. That's the only question that has to be answered: winner or loser.

I mean, damn, all these people throw number guesses out of their ass and that's ok and I come along with actual data (numbers pretty close to the little industry data we have) and I get the third degree? Heh, mmmkkk I guess

Just got my $15 casino chip for the promo. Time to gamble it up

If someone wanted to shoot for an hourly of $15 what stakes should they be playing?

You brought no actual data to the table regarding what % of players win and lose at online poker. No offense or anything.

It's a good data sample, not relevant to online directly but it does show the proportion of winners to losers in a pool. In the absence of a larger online proportion being available, we should see what we can draw from this.

It wasn't a huge sample (2 months or so), but playing a mix of $100NL FR and $50NL FR usually 7 tables on Merge, I was making $35 an hour. So, I'd think if you can only 4 table on Bovada, it's definitely doable at $50NL, and possibly $25NL, but obviously tougher.

Sorry if this has already been discussed, but does anyone have a schedule for the Bovada WSOP main sattys? I'm looking at the Bovada client right now and I see the 1st scheduled satty is on May 26th, which is a Monday. The next one scheduled is June 8th, which is a Sunday. Do they have any rhyme or reason to what day or time these are scheduled? Any idea how many they will run before the Main in July?

Thanks

The ones you found are the only 2 scheduled and the only 2 they are having AFAIK. I thought they had more last year? Glad you brought up that the first one is a Monday, I just assumed it'd be a Sunday. Doesn't make much sense.

You get roughly 250 hands an hour, convert that by per 100 hands you get 2.5 x 8bb winrate at 50nl ($4) = only $10 an hr. So I'd say it's near impossible at 25nl, and for 50nl you'd have to be crushing. 100nl definitely possible, but 50nl it's alot tougher to get $15/hr with only 4 tables.

Thanks. Is that 250 an hour calculating 4 tables?

Also, I haven't delved in to 100NL yet but sounds like it's just as soft as the 25 and 50 I've been playing?

Last, what about if we were a winning player at heads up sng?

By evidence I assume you mean the pages and pages of anecdotal accounts riddled with selection and reporter bias. Additionally, I am not aware of anyone's post that would invalidate my theory. On the other hand my post does invalidate yours. Additionally, since I suspect the two player pools overlap significantly(winning players and significant rakers), your evidence does not contradict my idea, and may support it. I could certainly be wrong, but I've seen little to no evidence to suggest that.

You think it's "quite a stretch" to suggest bovada is interested in earning more money? Not only that but they've limited their risk by only offering the bonuses for short time frames, if they ever decide it's going south they don't have to offer another. I think it's fairly clever from their perspective honestly.

Either way it's no sweat off my back, GL at the tables.

That Monday (my birthday hence the 526 in my name lol) is Memorial day, which is why I guess they put it there. I don't think they are running any after June 8th, but I could be mistaken.

Phatty is correct. iPlayPLOhigh is wrong.

We are not talking about estimating winrates. Obviously we need larger sample sizes for that.

We are talking about estimating the proportion of winning players. We do not need nearly as large of a sample size for that.

Phatty also acknowledged that it wasn't online. But he offered something. When making inference on humans, data on monkeys is better than no data at all. And in this case, for this particular question at hand, I think the leap is much much smaller. The leap may be bigger for the question of estimating winrates.

Ohh. Ur talking about limit. I can see that

you sure about this boss? I don't have data to refute you, but I don't think you have data in support of this either. You would need to have observed several people who are losing players over 1M hands, who had stretches of 100-200k hands in which they won. Ideally at the same stake. Obviously it's possible, but to say "anyone can run good for 100k or 200k" implies that it's something that shouldn't surprise you if it happened, and I'd say I think it would.

In general, yes we need huge sample sizes to estimate winrates with any sort of confidence, but I think people tend to take that a bit too far. And if we just want to determine whether a player is winning or not (e.g. NOT "what is your true winrate", but JUST "is winrate>0"), it's definitely not 1M. Not even 100k.

I'll be back with some numbers and data for the best of what I have later (which isn't that much since I never managed to trade databases with anyone having 1M+ hands or anything). But I gotta teach (statistics) in about an hour so it'll have to wait.

Case closed I guess.

1 guys home game data for 100 sessions equates to how many people are winners at online poker. How did I not come to that conclusion on my own.. Sigh.