| Posted by: Grinder at April 24, 2005, 7:46 am | | Topic: # of hands to be statisticaly significant Forum: Bonus Whores | Honestly - you will never know - you have to decide for yourself. A player is constantly changing, growing one way of the other.
It's a question for the ages and only after time can you really tell if you are a winner.
One year of playing would be my answer. If you are still playing then your probebly a winner. If you have given up - you still might be a winner but the odds are going down.
I don't think you can put a number on it, just like poker, numbers will help but your brain has to decide sometimes. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: tarheel1 at April 21, 2005, 1:30 pm | | Topic: # of hands to be statisticaly significant Forum: Bonus Whores | pilgrimshoes wrote: 50k at one limit, using the same exact strategy.
Isn't that in itself and indicator of poor play? Using the same exact strategy for 50k hands, forgive me if I am wrong but shouldn't you constantly adjust your strategy depending on the table characteristics and opponents?
_________________
blah blah blah | | Static Link |
| Posted by: pilgrimshoes at April 21, 2005, 5:38 am | | Topic: # of hands to be statisticaly significant Forum: Bonus Whores | many say 50k is the minimum to tell anything about your game.
50k at one limit, using the same exact strategy.
its not really that much..
as for nl games, id say much much more than 50k... due primarily to the fact that online multitable nl is not the same game as it is live. it is more about long term expectations, more like limit theory.. well to me.. and since youll be playing less hands, it takes longer to accumulate the data.
_________________
hey, its that guy | | Static Link |
| Posted by: hofdaddy at April 20, 2005, 6:58 pm | | Topic: # of hands to be statisticaly significant Forum: Bonus Whores | 100K to get a decent reading, more than that to get an accurate one
That's what the fools to be seem to say anyway
_________________
I hate poker. I hate life. I hate you
-hofdaddy's trinity
give a woman an inch and she takes a foot. Give her a foot and she'll moan like a whore | | Static Link |
| Posted by: Osric at April 20, 2005, 5:46 pm | | Topic: # of hands to be statisticaly significant Forum: Bonus Whores | lots and lots
Especially if you go back and analyze your play and change how you play some hands...then it takes lots more.
Don't sweat the small stuff. Play your game, read the "good" books, and once in a while go back and check and see what your stats say. You may spot a hole, but you may also spot an anomoly.
For the first 5 months I used PT, I found that I was losing money BIG time on AKo. I'm talkin something like 2BB/hand on a hand that should be strong. I figured that I was overplaying it, and maybe I was...but here's the thing. At the time, I was "rated" as tight-passive-passive. I am now rated tight-agressive-passive (barely, borderline agressive); but I am now in solid positive territory with AKo.
So if I was too agressive with AK, I over-compensated for it with other hands to get my rating up to agressive. But it may be that I just hit a bad streak in those 5 months and AK wasn't paying off for me.
Not really sure. | | Static Link |
| Posted by: tarheel1 at April 20, 2005, 4:37 pm | | Topic: # of hands to be statisticaly significant Forum: Bonus Whores | What is the minimum number of hands to get a reliable picture of how well you play?
I am at 5000+ since i have been keeping records probably 30,000 before I started with Poker Tracker.
_________________
blah blah blah | | Static Link |
|