traditional Texas Hold Em ?

In a Cash game say 1/2 NL 300 buy in
what is considered a good bb/100 ?

(hopefully i wont get wise answers like anything over 0)

I am trying to figure out at what point it becomes reliable (sample size)
I have this concept that variance is probably cyclical.
In other words after say 10k hands the chances of having 500 bad hands is probably equal to
500 hands that are "good" ones.
these 500 then become a smaller and smaller % of over all hands as the sample size increases
thus making the standard Deviation smaller and smaller away from the average bb/100

I would guess that a guy/gal who was plus 12bb/100 at 8k hands is pretty unlikely to then be
minus 6bb/100 the next 8000 after that......i am guessing that after watching a person play 225 to 250 hours
your should be able to get a beat on if they are a poor/fair/good/great player ?

Quote: gary55

In a Cash game say 1/2 NL 300 buy in
what is considered a good bb/100 ?

(hopefully i wont get wise answers like anything over 0)

I am trying to figure out at what point it becomes reliable (sample size)
I have this concept that variance is probably cyclical.
In other words after say 10k hands the chances of having 500 bad hands is probably equal to
500 hands that are "good" ones.
these 500 then become a smaller and smaller % of over all hands as the sample size increases
thus making the standard Deviation smaller and smaller away from the average bb/100

I would guess that a guy/gal who was plus 12bb/100 at 8k hands is pretty unlikely to then be
minus 6bb/100 the next 8000 after that......i am guessing that after watching a person play 225 to 250 hours
your should be able to get a beat on if they are a poor/fair/good/great player ?

Short term (even 10k) results do not "force" hands to go the other way to balance the universe, so be careful before drawing any conclusions.

The other thing about poker is that the best hand doesn't win every time. You can have the worst hole cards but still win. Therefore, trends based on straight up hand strength are meaningless.

Personally I would say that until you have at least 100,000 hand sample size you can't really judge well. Even 100,000 hands isn't a huge sample size. When I was grinding on line full time I was playing about 30,000 hands a month and while that is a decent amount it still isn't that much. Live is a whole other story. I play 30-35 hours a week and probably see 750-900 hands depending on the dealers.

Let me put it this way: I played a couple days ago for just over 3 hours. What's that? 125~150 hands?

I won exactly 3 hands.

But I still left up about $35.


Bottom line: you can't chart poker.

12bb/100 is $6.00 to $8.00 an hour. The top winners who "choose" to stay at $1/$2 ($300 max) for whatever reason are probably closer to $20-$25 an hour.

If you want references, Dusty Schmidt mentions in his book (Treat Your Poker Like a Business) minimum 40K hands as a starting point for true hourly win rate. In live poker this is around 1,500 hours at the tables.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Let me put it this way: I played a couple days ago for just over 3 hours. What's that? 125~150 hands?

I won exactly 3 hands.

But I still left up about $35.


Bottom line: you can't chart poker.

DJ you played 3 hours and had a dealer or multiple dealers most likely dealing 40-50 hands a hour? Either they have super human dealers in NJ or that number is high lol. Even with a shuffled I think 30 hands a hour is average to above average. Can you send some of those 45/hand a hour dealers to me, I had a slow group last night and would be surprised if we got 22/hands hour.

Quote: phendricks

12bb/100 is $6.00 to $8.00 an hour. The top winners who "choose" to stay at $1/$2 for whatever reason are probably closer to $20-$25 an hour.

Top players make more than that if the games are good. I made $32/hour over the last 4 years when playing 1/2.

Edit: I totally agree Phendricks Dusty Schmidt books are a must read. Some of the best books out there IMO.

Quote: phendricks

12bb/100 is $6.00 to $8.00 an hour. The top winners who "choose" to stay at $1/$2 ($300 max) for whatever reason are probably closer to $20-$25 an hour.

If you want references, Dusty Schmidt mentions in his book (Treat Your Poker Like a Business) minimum 40K hands as a starting point for true hourly win rate. In live poker this is around 1,500 hours at the tables.

He's talking about online poker, though. I think with live poker, you never really reach that point. By the time you play 1,500 hours, your game will probably have changed. The games in general might change. Also, the games seem to vary much more in live poker.

Let's say you are playing a true maniac, who will go through a bunch of max buys, raising blind, going all in with any piece, etc. While this doesn't happen as much as it used to in live poker, my understanding is it is even rarer online. Anyway, your results for that session could easily have a pretty significant impact on your results for the whole year.

The most extreme example of this is a Wall Street guy who shows up downtown a couple of times a year and buys into the uncapped 1/2 for 20k. And that 20k is very much in play.

It also depends on how much/when you play. For example, do you only play on weekends?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Bottom line: you can't chart poker.

You seem to be an experienced player, but I am confused by this post. Why would winning a small fraction of hands in a session, but still leaving with a profit, lead to the conclusion "you can't chart poker"? I'm also not totally sure what that sentence even means.

For the original question, I think the problem is that your overall win rate isn't static. But if you assume it is, you can name a winrate and SD/100, and then you can calculate the probability that your true winrate is above (or below) a certain threshold. I haven't done stats like that for a while and don't recall how offhand. You might be able to Google it.

Quote: PokerGrinder

Personally I would say that until you have at least 100,000 hand sample size you can't really judge well. Even 100,000 hands isn't a huge sample size. When I was grinding on line full time I was playing about 30,000 hands a month and while that is a decent amount it still isn't that much. Live is a whole other story. I play 30-35 hours a week and probably see 750-900 hands depending on the dealers.

WOW I just LOVE answers like this LMAO.
Ummmm lets see
1k hands a week divided in 100k = 2 years of poker and you don't think that gives you a pretty good beat
on your general ability level huh ?
I Can't stop laughing

Quote: phendricks

12bb/100 is $6.00 to $8.00 an hour. The top winners who "choose" to stay at $1/$2 ($300 max) for whatever reason are probably closer to $20-$25 an hour.

If you want references, Dusty Schmidt mentions in his book (Treat Your Poker Like a Business) minimum 40K hands as a starting point for true hourly win rate. In live poker this is around 1,500 hours at the tables.

I am guess you play live poker in casinos ?
I am sort of new to hold em but off to a very good start at the 1/2 nl level in live casino poker.
I have played many many hours in house games and on practice software.
I Wanted to ask you (if in you even are a live casino player?) do you think
the games are softer weekdays or week nights or weekends ? Have you noticed any diff at all ?
Also I am NOT ready for the 2/5 NL level yet but am thinking you probably aren't going to
notice an appreciable diff in player skill level between 1/2 and 2/5 ? At 1/2 vs 5/10 nl i would think yes ?
Thanks In Advance
If you clearly know Great if you don't please No Complete Guesses

Quote: gary55

...I am trying to figure out at what point it becomes reliable (sample size)
I have this concept that variance is probably cyclical.
In other words after say 10k hands the chances of having 500 bad hands is probably equal to
500 hands that are "good" ones...

What you're looking for is what we call N0 in blackjack. The point where the good should weigh out the bad and you should be left with your EV... I.E. Variance removed. In blackjack, this is usually about 100,000 hands. Though with good game selection/wonging/etc this can be accomplished by around 50k-75k hands.

Quote: gary55

WOW I just LOVE answers like this LMAO.
Ummmm lets see
1k hands a week divided in 100k = 2 years of poker and you don't think that gives you a pretty good beat
on your general ability level huh ?
I Can't stop laughing

No, 100,000 hands sounds about right. That's also the sampling side for blackjack. You have to understand how much variance there is in games like these. I know I'm referencing blackjack a lot, but the idea is the same... and if you've read other poker posts I've made I've played an absurd amount of poker hands as well. In blackjack this is why people play in teams. To get more hands and get to "the long run" faster. It could take a single counter playing on the weekends YEARS before he hits N0, or "the long run." Similarly it could take a poker player that long as well. In BJ at a decent game you get 100 hands per hour. At a GREAT game you can get 200 hands per hour. How many hands can you get in live poker with a "quick" dealer? 60? Assuming everyone else is playing fast?

I hope you can see how it would take a lot of hours to get a statistically meaningful number of hands to "guarantee" you see your advantage (assuming you have one). Online one could multi-table, though with so many tables going and the lack of some "live reads" you're going to lose part of your edge of being a good player, but you will up your hands per hour which will help you get to N0. Yin/Yang.

Quote: gary55

WOW I just LOVE answers like this LMAO.
Ummmm lets see
1k hands a week divided in 100k = 2 years of poker and you don't think that gives you a pretty good beat
on your general ability level huh ?
I Can't stop laughing

You love answers like this? Let's just put aside the fact that you are completely rude to go along with your ignorance.

You are a new member here and started a new thread to ask a question. You said yourself that you are rather new to poker and in my opinion starting this thread was a great idea. NOW... you got a well thought out answer from a member that has played poker for over 12 years and has played professionally for over three years. (Making a very nice living I might add) Now I don't claim to be some poker guru but I gave you a very good answer and you sh*t all over it. I almost didn't even bother to respond to this because of how rude your response was but I wanted you to know how rude it was.

As far as my original response and your mocking of it. Yes 100,000 hands is what the math guys say is a rough variance cycle. Yes a bad or average player can be a big or small winner for multiple years purely on luck and average to very good player can have a losing year because of luck. An acquaintance of mine who is maybe an average player at best has been running ridiculously hot for over a year and by just looking at his graphs you would think that he is one of the best players around. When in reality I have played about 500 hours of table time with the guy and he is by no means a great player, like I said he is an extremely average player that is running hot. In the last roughly 18 months that he has been playing he has probably played roughly 1,500 hours or roughly 45,000 hands. He very possibly could continue to run hot for a lot longer. That is variance, however in the long run it will even out and he will either start losing (which he has the last couple months) or he will actually get better and learn from his mistakes.

This example is why your laughing at it taking 2 years of live table time to really know if you are a winner isn't crazy. I made this response in the hopes that you will realize that you were an a** with your response, or you won't but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt anyways.

Edit: By the way if you are wondering my credentials. I play 2/5 and 5/10 NL for a living and play as high as 10/25 NL.

PG could have just said "eff yuu", but he didn't.
Some people have more patience, and nugget capacity, than others ;-)

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

PG could have just said "eff yuu", but he didn't.
Some people have more patience, and nugget capacity, than others ;-)

Trust me my initial response was going to be along those lines. Instead I waited a couple hours and posted a slightly censored reply. My original would have earned me at least a three day vacation.

Quote: PokerGrinder

Trust me my initial response was going to be along those lines. Instead I waited a couple hours and posted a slightly censored reply. My original would have earned me at least a three day vacation.

The OP also posted another thread basically saying you can't play with an edge on just about every casino game. His ignorance / trolling knows no bounds. I plan to ignore him moving forward.

This is since I got my phone last November. I'm likely a winning player but there's definitely variance in the game no matter how well you were doing before.

https://imgur.com/CiNM7NP

Quote: Romes

The OP also posted another thread basically saying you can't play with an edge on just about every casino game. His ignorance / trolling knows no bounds. I plan to ignore him moving forward.

Yes, he started with a lot of questions about poker, to which people gave him good answers, and he's responded by increasing his mockery of people who dare to actually answer his questions.

at pokergrinder your answer of 100k sounds about right. I am pretty sure I was talking about a guy who implied 100k wasnt even close to good sample size.
And what would you consider a min level of bb/100 for a guy to be a good and consistent grinder ?
I am guessing there is NOT big diff in the ability level of players 1/2 vs 2/5 but at 5/10 you will almost invariably be running into far better players ?

Quote: BTLWI

This is since I got my phone last November. I'm likely a winning player but there's definitely variance in the game no matter how well you were doing before.

https://imgur.com/CiNM7NP

I see a graph here. Was that winnings or losses ?
I don't know how to 'do' the graph thing, wish I did.
You'd need a big screen to appreciate.
Sorry cell phone guys and gals ;-)

Quote: gary55

at pokergrinder your answer of 100k sounds about right. I am pretty sure I was talking about a guy who implied 100k wasnt even close to good sample size.
And what would you consider a min level of bb/100 for a guy to be a good and consistent grinder ?
I am guessing there is NOT big diff in the ability level of players 1/2 vs 2/5 but at 5/10 you will almost invariably be running into far better players ?

I was both the one who said you need about 100,000 hands and that it was still not a huge sample size but just enough to start with. Either way I will answer your questions. 1/2 generally anywhere is quite soft at any time. 2/5 is where you can't really make a generalized statement. I have played many 2/5 games where there isn't a competent player in the game and I have played 2/5 where I was probably a fish in the game although that is extremely rare and happened under special circumstances. For the most part I would say that your standard 2/5 game will be slightly tougher but not by much. The reason it will be slightly tougher is because the higher limit will attract more grinders. The jump from 2/5 to 5/10 is massive in my opinion. A couple years ago I was crushing 2/5 and moved up to 5/10 and was out of my league. Nowadays I feel comfortable playing any game that my bankroll will allow but I can't understate how big a jump 2/5 to 5/10 is. 2/5 games will be very different depending on what part of the country you are playing, day of week, time of day and if anything special is going on that would bring more players into the rooms. Hell in Vegas you can find 10 different types of 2/5 games most days, some terrible, some great, some nitty, some crazy aggro etc.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

I see a graph here. Was that winnings or losses ?
I don't know how to 'do' the graph thing, wish I did.
You'd need a big screen to appreciate.
Sorry cell phone guys and gals ;-)

$20,166 in winnings over 157 sessions and 595 hours.

Quote: BTLWI

$20,166 in winnings over 157 sessions and 595 hours.

So you started playing poker last November? If you are brand new to the game than this is definitely partly good variance if you are only playing 1/2. $33/hour at 1/2 is exceptional! Congrats on the great start, if you have friends who play and are good players try discussing hands from your session with them, it will help both of you learn a lot.

Quote: BTLWI

$20,166 in winnings over 157 sessions and 595 hours.

Can you estimate how many buttons passed you in an average hour at the tables?

a good rule of thumb for live no limit is about 30 for online you could probably make that 40 per hour

Quote: PokerGrinder

So you started playing poker last November? If you are brand new to the game than this is definitely partly good variance if you are only playing 1/2. $33/hour at 1/2 is exceptional! Congrats on the great start, if you have friends who play and are good players try discussing hands from your session with them, it will help both of you learn a lot.

No, I got a smart phone and bought Poker Income in November. I've been playing a long time.