Not sure where to put this post so please move if necessary.

Anyway, I want to discuss how much variance there is from year to year playing cash games. For example, I have been recording my live results from playing mostly 1/2 NL for about 10 years. I have never had a loosing year from poker and have ranged from $2/hr in my first year to as high as $10/hr. This particular year has been a rollar coaster. I was averaging $10/hr for the first half and then lost 11 sessions in a row and am now down to under $4 an hour and have basically been breaking even for the last few months.

I don't know if I should chalk this up to variance or not. If I look at my prior years there was a gradual increase in my win rate. I was playing more hours back then, about 1000 hours a year, but more recently closer to 500 hours a year. So this has been my worst year since the first year I started playing. That's a little depressing. And when I think about my sessions as objectively as possible, of course I am making mistakes. It pretty rare for any of us to play a flawless session. But my mistakes pale in comparison to others at the table and they are in there winning pots and splashing around and here I am folding every hands and bleeding chips with the occasional missed flop, whiffed draw, etc.

Now I know variance is part of the game, but from a math perspective, if I am normally say a $8 - $10/hr winner for the last 5-6 years and now I am under $4, is that just variance? I will say I think the games had more action around the mid 2000's. I don't think people have as much money today and there are more regs and not as many guys rebuying like crazy etc. I remember there being more action more consistently years ago. I used to jump into a 2/5 game open utg to $40 and get 7 callers, lol. My local casino rarely runs a 5/10 NL game anymore. But on the other hand it runs 2/5 and 5/10 PLO and round by round so who knows. Either way, 1/2 NL should always be beatable and it doesn't take a genius to beat it. When I think back I played more ABC straighforward back then. I played a little more tight passive PF than I do now. Now, I raise a little more open in position, and I observe and read better than before and I fold more OOP. I also has a bigger bankroll back then but I still am properly rollled now too. Overall, I feel like I have a better understanding of the game today but sometimes that knowledge can hurt me because I overthink and make some weird hero calls or take weird lines that are not necessary.

Still, I am still an amateur and don't always play consistently or the same way. Sometimes I get a bit titled or spewy, but I am aware of it and work on it the best I can. With all this in mind, I would like to know if this is standard variance or if I should be concerned and re-evaluate my game. And, how do I know HOW to evaluate if it is variance or my play? Or some combination of both?

Please help me with this because this year has sucked!!

Sorry for your bad luck. Don't post in the BBV section. You'll get nothing but 13 y/o loser comments to your question.

The changes in your winrate are probably a combination of things, but they're certainly within the realm of variance. I use 50,000 hands as a standard number for determining a winrate. Others use 100,000 hands. Some people think you get a decent idea of your winrate after 20,000.

If you've played 500 hours in the last year, you're looking at only between 12000-15000 hands. So, it's definitely possible to run bad over that many hands. The games do seem to get slightly worse every year (Two new good regs just showed up in my regular game...ughhh). I don't think the games will ever be as juicy as they were in 2004-2006.

You've recognized some leaks in your own game, plus you're properly bankrolled. Just keep learning and playing. Hope you run better.

You can post this in the Bankroll and Winrate thread in this forum. A link can be found in the stickies.

Locked.