that is so sad. Big pots are part of the joy of live poker! If you've never check/jammed $1100 into a $1000 pot, you haven't lived.

Given this is the case in live poker, I think the question should therefore be "are you a winning player or not?", and if your winrate is $20/hr over 500 hours (without doing the math) I think it's pretty safe to say you are a winner with like 99.5% confidence.

Does anyone know how many hours puts you above 95% confidence? Would be really curious to know what it is.

It depends on your observed Winrates and standard deviation. I've seen one player have a 95% confidence that he's a winner after 170 hours. His 95% confidence win rate was at least 30 cents an hour, up to as much as $72 per hour. Huge bounds, but all of them positive.

This seems very specific, is there a calculator/formula for this that I can use? Thanks!

Really? This seems absurdly low..Is this just talking about flips or pots in general? I assume this is because you buy in short?

I've gotten in 200bb plenty of times in only 400 hours of 2/5 (but I buy in for 200bb).

I just want to chime in and say that making 35hr at 2/5 over any decent sample takes work. I have been ignorant to how difficult it actually is.

Curious why you thought it was easier in the first place.

overestimation of skill/ thinking it is easy to recreate High winrates because certain posters regularly do

What do you think you are doing wrong?

Max/Min BI is really important here. If your game is capped at 200/300 it will be very hard, 500 doable, 1k+ and you should be aiming higher.

Serious Q:
How in the world are you basically never playing 400bb pots?

At 600 max buy 2-5, I find myself in a 400+bb pot probably once every 4-5 hours. Generally happens one of two ways: a cooler style hand gets out of control (2 pair vs set, straight v set), or a whale-maniac gets 200bb in there in some ******ed fashion that if I posted the hand in a 2+2 thread, I'd have half the world telling me to fold 1 (usually over the board) pair, followed by people saying the hand should be in bbv.

In 200bb cap 2-5 that frequency of big hands increase slightly (increases more in the right lineup).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a $5.40/hr bump yes compared to not playing those pots or running neutral but I think it's good to realize it's actually a $10.80 swing in short term wr if you lose those pots.

Ill list a few reasons

1) Max buy in is $500 (100BBs)
2) I normally buy in for $300 although most sessions Im at or over $500 at least 1/2 the session. Either by winning or by topping up if I see some fish with more chips than me.
3) Ive counted several times and the avg buy in when a new table starts is about $350.
4) I play 80% during the daytime where there are very few maniacs playing huge pots
5) I would bet that no more than 10% of the time is there two or more 200BB stacks on the table at the same time during the daytime.
6) I play a very low variance style. Not on purpose. I didnt even know it was low variance until I compared to others here.

I wouldnt feel bad if you're not there. No matter what you see on 2+2 with people bragging about win rates, I would estimate that only 1-2% 2/5 players in the world are making that much. Being in the top 1-2% of anything is pretty impressive.

That makes sense
I try to play at least 150effective deep if I can help it (sometimes I top up over 100bb, sue me). I prefer to play nights/weekends. And my game is usually medium-to-high variance. I also will table change towards big stacks if multiple tables are running.

But the 300 starting stack is probably the biggest reason IMHO. You need to more than triple up before playing a 400bb pot, and have a villain do the same. At a day game that's lol.

Whereas if I had my druthers, I could play one starting at jump street, or at most need one double to get there.

Crazy to think just how much game selection (wrt time and location) can drastically chains expectations.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. It's been posted ITT a few times. I'm on my phone, or I'd give you a link. Search this thread for a post by Bip! With the word "formula" in it.

After Beginning on the Ninth, I have 153 hrs this month and five more days to grind, should be able to snag 200 or very close to it

Ok, I found it and it's probably worth posting again. To find the 95% confidence level on your bounds related to observed winrate:
Multiply your hourly standard deviation by 2 and then divide the result by the square root of your number of hours. For short: Hourly SDev*2 / sqrt of hours

As you can see, increased hours will tighten the heck out of these bounds, especially over the first couple hundred hours.

To use, combine with observed winrate. So if observed winrate is 7bbs/hr and your bounds are +/- 6.3bbs/hr, you can be 95% confident that you are a winning player, even though your true winrate could be as low as .7bbs/hr.

Thanks! Unfortunately no posts by him ITT with "formula" that actually has the formula. I just PMed him though.

Or you could just look at the post above yours. ��

Lol we must have posted at the same time. Thank you very much.

conversely, can my true winrate be as high as 13-14bb/hr?

Is there a reason why we're using 2 and not 1.96 as our z value? I get that they're practically the same and that 2 is "easier" than 1.96, but we're also calcing the square root of a random number, so it's not like anyone is doing this without a calculator...

Exactly.
IDK. I just stole the formula from bip! Bip!?

2 was just an approximation. 1.96 if you want to be exact.

I don't know the statistical answer here, but my strong suspicion is that if you have someone who's winning 7 bbs/hour with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 7bb/hour, it's significantly more likely that they're a break even player than they're winning 14bb/hour. This is an application of Bayes theorem and reversion to the mean. Basically, you have a ton of observed break even players, and very, very few 14bb/hour crushers. So, much more likely that any given person who's a 7bb/hour winner is running good than bad.