theres alot of debate about how you can determine a winning player, i wanted to ask people what they thought
Im not sure how many hands you can run good for ive heard people say yu can run good over a fair sample of like 50k-100k hands, so lucky fish on a heater, winning player on a downswing, or just simply a winning/ loosing people normally, how can yu tell?
if you are new to poker just get someone more experienced player to tell you so. post hands on evaluation forums etc
but yeah, in general, when ppl run good they think they are better than they are, and vice versa
Not a NL player but if you are a good winning player it's very unlikely that after 100k hands you loose money, and vice versa.
Don't think about pinpointing you're winrate like you make 4.7bb/100 or 4.8bb/100 with that samplesize however.
It's a little relevant that you might think to have a big sample since you climb stakes (less winrate) improve your game or get -EV habits, change the hours at which you play, or another trillion things that screw up everything.
ahhh well ive been playing tournaments for a couple years im online ive been a pretty breakeven player, ive just started playing cash and ive made a pretty good profit over 10k hands, i see what you mean though andre
thanks for your advice btw nightfrost, ive flicked through your blog a few times, now im using a hud ive been posting hands after every session and been to coaching sessions so even though im making a profit i feel my game itself has improved massively
Originally posted by andreibalint
Not a NL player but if you are a good winning player it's very unlikely that after 100k hands you loose money, and vice versa.
Actually even a 100k sample size can be misleading. I have had two 100k break even stretches over appox 3million hands although Im a +3bb/100 winner overall.
Im sure most consistent longterm winners have also had simlilar stretches. So its more than possible that a winning player could lose for his his 1st 100k hands or vice versa.
