Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek
My guess is that it would actually be higher, no? It's hard for there to be lots of winners when almost every small stakes table has a rat-holing 70 bb/hr winner sitting at the table (i.e. the dealer).
I'm pretty convinced my winrate has almost nothing to do with me and is fully dependent on my opponents lossrate. As whales improve to fish, and fish improve to slightly losing players, that has a huge affect on me. Would be super interesting to see all the graphs of everyone in my room and see how they relate to each other over time.
GjustaguessG
You're pretty much missing the point with this line of thought, GG. A win rate or loss rate isn't a thing that people have and carry around with them. It is nothing more than a mathematical description of the difference in skill between two players, or, more commonly, a player and his field. It varies constantly as players come and go, and even when they just get dealt different hands that play to their strengths or weaknesses.
Your idea that you can't improve your WR by improving your skills would only be true if you already played every hand perfectly against every player.
I do agree with you to this extent: improving from horrible to break even is much easier than improving from decent to good. And there is an upper limit on everyone's skill. Not everyone who works his ass off will automatically become world class. So, if your competition are getting better, they're going to get better faster than you are, because they are going from horrible to ok. Meanwhile, you sound like you've given up on trying to go from good to very good or very good to excellent, or whatever.