More than hourly win rate expectation of very good player for a single reasonable length session.

In my opinion, looking at it any other way is meaningless.



Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

For me, I consider any win over 100bbs in less than 10 hours a "pretty big" win, and any win over 200bbs a "very big" win. Depending on your standard deviation (how swingy your normal game is) though, YMMV.

Your question really has no good answer.
If you flopped 7 sets, and get paid $30 on each of them because you bet $10/$10/$10 on all streets and get 1 person to call who had two paid, then your win rate is completely garbage and you should feel bad for your self.

If you never made better than a 1p hand, and read people well and picked some nice spots to semi-bluff and laid down an OP to an obvious set and managed to win $300 while still getting kicked in the nuts by the deck, then you should feel happy.


The focus should really be less on 'how much did I win today' and more on 'how well did I play today'.

Anything above 2 standard deviations.

If winning 200bb happens 3x a week, then 190bb win would not be considered a big win.

But if you're mostly breaking even, then 190bb win would be considered a HUGE win.

As related to personal growth, yes, but in actual practice, no.

Same with professional work. Does anyone care that you tried your best and put in your best effort but had dismal result? No.

Does anyone care that you barely tried but had great result? Yes, because they'll think you're a genius.

We are here to help people play better poker.
So we should focus on the process not the result.

That's a pretty well accepted idea.
And it seems like you're just trying to be a contrarian.

Does anybody in the poker world truly care you had an up night or got crushed? Other than your backers, no.

For someone who seems to take pride in the Socratic method of learning, you sure have this one way off. The individual is the only one who cares about the process and results, whether in poker or in the professional world.

i think it boils down to the question being a question that is very self dependant. there are just too many metrics that someone could use to evaluate and answer it. every person is going to have their own ideas which metrics are more/less important. those metrics are also going to probably be a function of how much time you play in general. if i play 5 hours/month, i probably wouldn't give 2 ****s about "playing well" because i'll never get close to approaching a point where playing well pays off appropriately. on the flip side, if i play 60 hours/week and have a great win rate but won tons of money by getting it in with 30% equity and just sucking out, i'm probably not thrilled about the results because i would (should?) know that eventually Icarus flies too close to the sun and melts his wings...

Definitely being contrarian but still makes a good point. IR2M is saying what should be and RP is saying what is.

"Those who know how to win are much more numerous than those who know how to make proper use of their victories"

-Polybius

That's life, son, not just poker. No one cares except those that are affected.

I do not take pride in whatever method you choose to label it. I am just here for my own learning purpose, like everyone else.

Sounded like you were disagreeing with me, but then sounds like you agree here.

--------

Fact of matter is, result is the only thing that matters at end of the day. The only reason why I would care about improving my skill is so that I can have a better result the next day.

FWIW, understanding how well I played and accepting end result are basically higher level thinking of acknowledging that poker is as much about losing as winning.

If I had a losing session, but I can recognized that I played well, it would make me feel slightly better than knowing I had not played well. But then again, how many people actually know what it means to play well?

So is acknowledging playing well and ignoring result another form of lying to yourself?

Misunderstood your OP. You're right, we are in agreement. Nobody gives a **** about your own results/process except for you.

If you GII on the flop and you are a 80/20 favorite but end up losing then you should feel good about how you played, even though you just lost a massive pot.

Key word: should.

Why should you feel good about losing, because you made the right decision?

Should you feel bad about winning if you made the wrong decision?

FWIW, if you're new to the journey of poker? Yes, you should tell yourself that losing isn't necessarily bad.

However, if you have been at this game for a while, it shouldn't even be about feeling good or bad; it should be "when are we playing the next hand?"

May have played my last session for 2016 (unless I can get to a room in FL over Christmas), so tentative results:

707.6 hours, $6729 in winnings, $9.51/hr (meh?)

Not a bad year considering that I also dabbled in some RxR/PLO again with marginal results. Highest volume year ever too. 3rd highest winning year.

Sounds like arguing just to argue.

Nobody got time for that.

running at 0.085bb/hr over 164 hours in my normal game since September 1st, sustainable? with a few short wins at other casinos i'm at 2.6bb/hr over 187 hours.

to bring it on-topic, of the 80 sessions included in the above sample, i'm at 36/80 for 45% wins but i feel "bad" about at least 80% of the sessions (more like 95% in this sample) which obviously has to include some wins, and not just feeling badly about the lost hands within those winning sessions.

The content of your post could be read as an honest question from a new player. When I played 13, "professionally "I considered a big win anything over 330 big blinds. $1000 wins back to back can really help out the roll at that level and set you up better for taking a jump in stakes.

For me, I rate the ability to have 300+ big blind wins at least 10% of the time as a key factor in being able tocrush live low stakes no limit. This also applies better to 10 to 15 hour sessions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could be variance, could be play bad. Post some HH's yo.

164 hours of B/E is not a long stretch in live poker by any means.

FWIW, whatever session stats related to that stretch are obviously going to be bad, and I wouldn't put any weight into them at all.

Focus on individual hands and sessions.

As always, lots of other good info posted on here regarding this type of question.

However, from a purely results oriented point of view, I personally consider a 300bb win at my 1/3 NL max BI $300 game a big win. In 392 sessions, I've booked 29 sessions where I've won $900+, or 7% of the time (noting that I once went 78 session between big wins).

GcluelessbigwinnoobG

Started playing the 9th this month, took a day, nah almost two days off, have 92hrs so far

Living up to the name. Nice work.

FWIW, in 1/2 and 1/3, 12.5% of my sessions are +/-$1000 or more.