make sure it's included in your winrate...

That's sexy!! One of theses days I'll hit the bbj and become a crusher myself.

$25.03/hr winner at 2/4 Limit over 1,353 hours. Pretty sure that makes me the GOAT.

G$1.94/hrwithouttheBBJ,whichhonestlystillmightmakemetheGO ATG

Biggest local BBJ ever (I believe) just hit in one of the local rooms. Pit guy / Chip runner at our room decided to let the Button pass before joining the game and missed out.

Ginbeforeyouguysallruinthisstorywith"yeah,butifhes itsdownitdoesn'thit"G

I sincerely believe you don't give yourself enough credit. You have a large enough sample of sessions that you should look at things with respect to your stdev #s. You will probably see that you can be pretty damn confident in your WR #s.


very nice

Thanks bip. I'm sure I'll have more to say about this at 3000 hours, we'll see what's what then.

Gwhat'swhatG

Bottom line is you have an enviable WR over a very large sample.

Fair enough. But I've always maintained the bulk of a mediocre players winrate is based soley on the grand ineptness of their opponents. I'm pretty sure that grandly inept opponents improving to simply meh opponents can have a far more devastating effect on our winrate than we'd like to admit.

GknowswheremymoneycomesfromG

Not saying you're wrong. Just don't want to admit that I may just be mediocre.

You take a very defeatist attitude to poker which I could not disagree more with. I find myself improving every day and can see myself moving past players in my player pool that I used to be afraid of.

I know you qualified your statement with "mediocre players," but it seems like you are glossing over the areas you can actually control, improving your bet sizing, fine tuning when to check behind vs. bet, etc. So many areas you can improve upon that are independent of your villain.

All of this adds (theoretically) percentages of a BB/hr to your winrate. The bulk of any crushing winrate is made up by idiots dumping money at the table. IMO.

I don't mean to be defeatist, and of course there's nothing wrong with constantly attempting to get better and improving yourself (ETA: and even Vernon mentioned in another thread how us simply improving enables us to spot mistakes in others that we wouldn't have noticed before). But I think you also have to be realistic about where the bulk of your money comes from.

Gknowswheremymoneycomesfrom,anditain'tinmodifyingm ybetsizeby+/-10%/etc.G

I think it's all relative. As you move up, you have less opportunities to stack fish with TPTK for 100 BB's. But an observant player will start looking for 10-20 opportunities in a session to win 5-10 BB's off a "reg" instead. It may not be sexy, but I feel it almost insulates you from having to rely on fish to sustain your win rate.

I hope poker never stops being a challenge because half the fun is seeing yourself improve and spot opportunities you never used to even consider.

But the crushing winrate comes from stacking the fish with TPTK for 100bbs AND taking 5-10bbs of the regs a dozen hands a session. Your winrate is obliterated when you eliminate the fish from that equation.

Ha, I'll stop because I don't mean to dump on your fun. After all, I'm just a mediocre once-a-week reg who does this hobby purely for fun, so I certainly agree how learning / growing / etc. is definitely how most of the fun is derived from this hobby.

Gpessimisticoptimist:Iknoweverythingisgoingtogohor riblywrong,butI'mokwiththatG

As I improve I see new errors of my own that I was previously blissfully unaware of. So there is that.

Don't stop. You are exactly right. Most people like to think that they have high winrates because they are better then all the other regs when in all probability they just got lucky they happened to be the one on the receiving end of 300BB when a fish stacked off with a pair of aces with a weak kicker. If there were no fish pretty much everyone would be a loser after rake and tip. That's why it's stupid to berate fish for drawing out on you, making a supposedly stupid stupid call when you were repping top set, etc.

Also, if you are up $100k or even $67k, you are probably better than 90% of the people who post here.

I read a quote recently...

"To be successful in business surround yourself with smart people. To be successful in poker surround yourself with idiots"

Ha, awesome!

Gdeadon,imoG

I have to say, I've found your strat advice questionable for a long time. Because it wouldn't work in the games I play. But it obviously did in the games you play, for a long time. Perhaps the other players are evolving and you're just not.

No disrespect intended, the results speak for themselves -- yours are a lot better than mine. But maybe it's time to change a bit?

No disrespect taken, and I've definitely thought about changing things up given the recent results. The curse of good results early on is it is very difficult to change your method when it looks to work for so well for so long... so I'm not ready to give up on it... yet.

One thing I've always maintained is that there is probably multiple ways to skin a cat. I'm just getting into Theory & Practice, to the part where he outlines his strategy, which he's convinced is a winning one, and yet at the same time he makes a careful effort to emphasize that it isn't the only valid strategy (and that there are most likely many varying different winning ones).

Regarding the other players evolving, I don't think there is any question that some of that is going on in my pool, and that's basically my point (i.e. when all the whales in the pool evolve to fish, and all the fish evolve to meh players, well, that is going to be reflected in our winrate regardless of how much we improve ourselves).

GhasneveractuallyskinnedacatG

+$42 in 4 min at 3/6 limit while waiting for NL seat.

Sustainable?

Bad form with the hit and run

3000!! I hope you have more to say before then... I can't wait 9 more years dude.

new to live wondering how many hours of play i should have before i can actually have a good idea of what my win rate is.

I have more than 3000 hours and have only a vague clue on my WR. Hoping the fog is cleared by 4000 mark.

Rough approx of 1 stddev might be 60 * bigblind / sqrt(hours), so a rough 99% confidence interval might be sampleWR +- 3 * above

There are enough caveats to that calc that it may be worthless.

+1

I think anything > $0 would do it.