I go to school everyday and cant allways play 5hr+ session, im trying to increase the size of my sample to have a good idea of my real wr... As for now i think im playin good vs the field

I guess maybe not.

Exhibit A: everyone plays differently against big stacks.

Exhibit B: longer one plays with same players, better the reads are developed.

So session length does have something to do with WR?

Pretty sure I read somewhere that size doesn't matter.

I get what you're saying if you're saying our winrate can be influenced by playing deepstacked (both if we suck deep or are crushers deep). And I get that the longer we play the better we develop reads (course, we also have reads developed on us).

I don't agree if you think it's because he's hit & running cuz I'm pretty sure hit & running as a long term method doesn't hold up to scrutiny (due to avoiding huge wins plus he'll have to put in huge sessions in the times he starts off slow just to hit the target, all of which will reduce his winrate).

Anyhoo, awesome results... so far. Most likely a winning player in the pool he's playing in, might be dangerous to conclude much else at just ~500 hours.

ETA: If anything RP, would you conclude that his WR is actually smaller than it should be (due to him missing out on reads and not being able to play deep, so long as he doesn't suck deep?).

GnicestartOP,goodluck!G

That's just what she's telling you. :P

I would expect a better WR on longer sessions, for a winning player. You have longer to develop reads.

tl;dr.

Did I not say likely? It's not like I was speaking in absolute.

IMO, most players who play short sessions do so to protect wins because they adhere to the saying "you can't lose what you don't put in the middle."

So someone who plays short sessions IMO is likely running hot and frequently cashing out early to protect wins.

But length does.

WhAt is a good lenght for a session? I believe its near 5 hour

Longer you can play optimally, better it is.

It varies from person to person.

Or like he said is a college student and probably doesnt have infinite buyins.

I try to keep my sessions to <6 hours because after 6 hours I feel my play detoriate and I start to get tired. Granted I work from 8-6 Monday thru Friday so that might have something to do with it.

After Black Friday my sessions were generally very short. I had attention span issues and had to work hard to be able play longer sessions. With focus I was able to u make my sessions 8 to 10 hours. I have played longer but for me that length seems to be optimum

Reasons longer sessions are good for WR:

Develop better reads on players.

Build a big stack that can win you $1k in one spot by punishing a single mistake from an opponent.

Better play-time:travel-time ratio if you care about those things.


Reasons longer sessions can be bad for WR:

Players can get a better read on you.

If you build a big stack it only takes one mistake to blow it.

Fatigue can harm your play.


I think that longer sessions are generally better if I can get them, but the balancing act between the positives and negatives is probably pretty close overall. Problem is that finding the time to sit at a table for 8 hours is a lot harder than going after work for 3 hours. I only get 1 or 2 chances a month for long sessions now

Cashing out relatively quickly when up isn't all that bad a strategy for a player that isn't comfortable playing deep. It avoids big mistakes at the expense of gaining valuable experience and slows the learning process.

Most of my sessions historically have been ~4hrs but that's because the rooms around here shut down at 2am and I wasn't always privy to the juicy home games that followed them. I would have loved to have logged 8 hr sessions. I don't think it's good at all to assume a short session player is protecting wins. There's all sorts of reasons you may need to quit. In my situation the short sessions actually bolstered my winrate considerably because in that last hour before the room closed people went berserk. My WR in the last 15 minutes of a session at 1/2 is probably north of $50/hr. I can't prove it but I'm guessing it's something crazy.

Oh I believe you. We used to have a room around here that closed every night. I think every person in the room that was stuck tried to get even in the last 15 minutes lol.

is it possible for a winning player to have a losing year?

i know they could maybe lose money a few months in a row but would a good player almost always come out on top playing full time for a year?

BBV ------>

<------- WR/BR

winning players are winning players because they win

ya but my question is regarding variance. it's possible for good online players to have downswings of losing over like 20k+ hands so is it possible for a good live player to have a downswing that last an entire year?

I personally have never had a losing quarter. None of my pals who are perfessionals have ever had losing years...and I know quite a few. Im sure there is some one some where who is the unluckiest player ever who that has happened to but no one whose game I respect has been that unfortunate

Ask in WR thread, need number of hours per quarter, assumed WR, etc.

A professional player might play about 50,000 hands in a year. Play around with this page: http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

It is not perfect, but it is a good model to approximate the types of variance you could see. A professional playing 50k hands at 40 BB/100 WR and 200 BB/100 SD has only a .0004% chance of losing, or 1/250,000.

Why do you think your bank is fireproof?

mpethybridge felt the need to point out once that he's never had a losing year, so he definitely thinks it's possible. And he views himself as a winning player.