Quote:
Originally Posted by homerdash
Garick, i don’t understand why GG is allowed to incessantly post AIDs in this thread and the high stress thread (not to mention the individual strat thread that i don’t read but if i do, look who’s AIDsing), and we can’t talk about tangential live poker topics.
Because he's not trolling and he's not being disrespectful. He's posting his honest opinion. I disagree with a lot of it, and think he's gotten
way too stubborn lately, but that doen't make it trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek
And what's so difficult about achieving 4000 hours at a level? I have a once-a-week rule with the wife and still get in 500+ hours a year. Seems to me it would be very simple for rec players who love poker as a hobby to get in much more. I talked with a rec the last session out who claims she plays almost every night, and considering she, like a lot of others, seems to be there every single night I play, this doesn't sound too farfetched. 800+ hour years for devoted nothing-else-much-going-on-in-their-lives recs seems very reasonably attainable to me.
GcluelesshoursnoobG
Several things. One, most rec players aren't here. They aren't interested in the amount of work that discussing strat on 2+2 is, and they probably aren't tracking their results, or at least not 100% honestly. You are frankly an anomaly in being here and engaged in strat, but unwilling to move beyond what you learned several years ago. And, frankly, your opinions have hardened to "you kids get off my lawn" level over the last year or so.
Two, very few recs put in the session lengths you do. My average is under 4 hours, for example.
Three, it doesn't take a crusher anywhere close to 4K hours to build a roll for a higher level, if available. I did it in 400 hours.
Four, lots of recs get bored and move on if they can't move up. (See anomaly comments above). I have less than 50 hours over the last year. Of those, less than 10 are $1/2, and I just played that because I was already there and it was all that was running. And I'm one of the few who still really like poker. $1/2 has no challenge to me anymore though, and the money available playing it is meaningless, so why bother?
Five, No one is going to grind the **** out of 1/2 "to prove you wrong." Why should they bother?
Six, by the time you get 4K hours in a game, both the game and (hopefully) your play have changed so much that the idea of a common "true winrate" throughout is likely meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyBuz
10 bigs an hour is easier than gg believes but way harder than 99% of the rest of the forum believes.
This.
Quote:
A bunch of people with meaningless sample sizes arguing semantics is a waste of time.
A meaningful sample size is going to be in the tens of thousands of hours. If you think you know what your actual long term win rate is after 2000 or 4000 hours or whatever small sample size you are referencing then it shows your obliviousness to variance (in my humble opinion of course).
Not this. You don't know what your actual WR is, but it doesn't take 10s of thousands of hours to get a 95% confidence rates with reasonable bounds. You won't know your mythical "true winrate,' but you can be 95% confident that it lies between (for example) 8BB/hr and 16BB/hr (which happens to be my most recently figured 95% confidence interval).
And remember that statistically, I'm as likely to be running like crap with an expected WR of 14BBhr+ as I am to be running like god with a true WR below 10BB/hr. I am not a stats expert, but I believe these are bell-curve distributed, with my most-likely WRs clustered near my observed WR.
Of course, outliers exist, but that doesn't make smaller samples statistically meaningless. It is far more likely that GG's reduced WR over the last 1K hours is more due to rake and game condition changes in that time than it is to GG running poorly. Obv, it's not due to his playing style changing.