[Closed] Time Required to Achieve Goals

Hi!

Dont want do discourage you but assuming you are a begginer having a winrate of 2BB/100 is pretty optimistic.If you are new to the game you will definately need to improve your game by reviewing your sessions,...
Also you have to be aware of variance in poker(and it can be a bitch very often) and lower your winrate higher the variance.For example having winrate of 1BB/100 you can play 100k hands and still be below -$.

But all in all microstakes are very beatable and probably winrate of 5BB/100 is possible. I dont suggest adding additional funds but rather investing time to better you game and achieve higher winrate(it will be very valuable for higher stakes)

Totally agree. I started playing 2c/4c as I found I was losing too quick, then it stabilised and I started winning. I think you can lose big in the beginning especially at that $5 buy in stake of 10c/20c. I then found I was crushing the 4c but when I moved up to 10c I would lose. I seemed to tilt on that level after building it up and then some nutter cracks your Kings with 8 5 offsuit. So what I did was deposit some money and moved up to .10/.20
I beat that level so now playing .25/.50

Also you could try moving up with 100 big bets

Originally posted by Sweetlovernr
Also you could try moving up with 100 big bets

don't

Originally posted by DarthBobo

Originally posted by Sweetlovernr
Also you could try moving up with 100 big bets

don't

NICE ANSWER ♦

Yes, don't do 100BB. I tried to quickly build a bankroll on a new site and tried this. It is a complete waste of time and it drove me nuts.

Even if you get 2BB/100, it is only a long term average and can still run badly with a 2BB/100 winrate. You will then have to drop back down and the fluctuation can distract from improving your game and will end up taking longer to move to a higher stake.

It can easily happen where you run or play well at a lower stake, then run or play badly at a higher stake. You will go nowhere. You are better off following bankroll management and taking shots when you are close.

You could also try putting it all on red in roulette.

Originally posted by DukeFreedom
You could also try putting it all on red in roulette.

I've tried this three times already and it hasn't worked for me yet, but I figure with the tiny sample size it's just variance. I've studied roulette pretty solidly so I know my edge will eventually beat teh Casino fishes.

Originally posted by Waiboy

Originally posted by DukeFreedom
You could also try putting it all on red in roulette.

I've tried this three times already and it hasn't worked for me yet, but I figure with the tiny sample size it's just variance. I've studied roulette pretty solidly so I know my edge will eventually beat teh Casino fishes.

While I am quite certain that you are joking I do believe Roulette can be beaten, but only in the rarest of circumstance.

There are only a limited number of times that Black or Red will hit consecutively. Computer programs can display this over many billions of trials. If in the extremely rare circumstance you see a Roulette board that has hit one color about 14-16 times consecutively then you can start Martingale betting on the opposite color.

Don't quote me exactly on 14 being safe, but I would be shocked if 16 times wouldn't be enough to safely begin a Martingale, provided the table limits aren't easily reached.

Of course this can be applied to Even/Odd, 1st-12 2nd-12 3rd-12, etc..

A good method would be to run trials on a site like Random.org

[This info is provided with no warranty or guarantee, use at your own risk]

Nav

Originally posted by Navrark

Originally posted by Waiboy

Originally posted by DukeFreedom
You could also try putting it all on red in roulette.

I've tried this three times already and it hasn't worked for me yet, but I figure with the tiny sample size it's just variance. I've studied roulette pretty solidly so I know my edge will eventually beat teh Casino fishes.

While I am quite certain that you are joking I do believe Roulette can be beaten, but only in the rarest of circumstance.

There are only a limited number of times that Black or Red will hit consecutively. Computer programs can display this over many billions of trials. If in the extremely rare circumstance you see a Roulette board that has hit one color about 14-16 times consecutively then you can start Martingale betting on the opposite color.

Don't quote me exactly on 14 being safe, but I would be shocked if 16 times wouldn't be enough to safely begin a Martingale, provided the table limits aren't easily reached.

Of course this can be applied to Even/Odd, 1st-12 2nd-12 3rd-12, etc..

A good method would be to run trials on a site like Random.org

[This info is provided with no warranty or guarantee, use at your own risk]

Nav

OMG What have I done?

Nav, for the sake of all that is good in the world, quit while you're behind - before this thread becomes another thread like this thread... or this thread.

This only ends in ugliness and statistics.♠_o:

Originally posted by Waiboy
This only ends in ugliness and statistics.♠_o:

I sense a subliminal intend to equate the two; ugliness and statistics.

Originally posted by DukeFreedom

Originally posted by Waiboy
This only ends in ugliness and statistics.♠_o:

I sense a subliminal intend to equate the two; ugliness and statistics.

If it came across as subliminal intent, then I apologise.

Nav, for the sake of all that is good in the world, quit while you're behind

Do you know any programming languages like QuickBasic or something newer and more complex? If so it's a very simple program to write. Run it over billions of trials and you'll find that I know exactly what I'm talking about.

It is a pity that I spent those many years studying all of these games like 6/49, Roulette, Pick3 etc., instead of learning Poker. I wonder where I would be by now...

Nav ♠_mad:

You spent years studying roulette?

You cannot ever win in the long run. Never, ever.

You are always losing your money in the long run. Always. No matter what.

Martingale always loses in the long run because the world runs out of money when you get multiple flips against you in a row.

If you win at roulette it is only because you are on the good side of variance, because you are at an odds disadvantage. That is why casinos love it. And when I play it I know that at least I'm almost getting a 50% of winning - but not quite.

Sorry folks, I couldn't help myself.

/posting in this thread.

It's much easier. Roulette is a memoryless* game and every single move is -EV.

QED there exists no winning strategy, ever.

memoryless = future outcomes do not depend on previous outcomes

Sadly some people have failed to understand what I am saying, preferring to believe the lies the Casinos and Lottery corporations have spread for decades.

It is mathematically impossible for Red to hit 100 times in a row. You can run 999 trillion computer simulations and you will see it never happens once, not even close. If it was possible then people could also hit a bad streak in Poker that would last a lifetime.

There is a maximum number of times that any given occurrence can repeat. So if you start a martingale after sufficient consecutive repeats of said occurrence - provided the table limits at the Casino permit - you will be able to complete your Martingale 100% of the time. (EDIT: Actually it would be 99.9% of the time)

If anyone does not agree with my statements above you confirm that you believe that a Roulette ball can land on Red to infinity, and that is absolute insanity.

Nav

EDIT: Here's a challenge if anyone is interested. Start flipping a coin right now and don't stop until you get one hundred heads in a row. No sleeping/eating/drinking/bathing/intimate relations until you accomplish your goal.

What will happen? You'll die within a few days from dehydration.

I was just doing a Google search on coin flips and I found an interesting result.

This is the chance of flipping a coin - heads - 100 times in a row:

1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376:1

So if by some chance you have seen a Roulette ball land on Red 99 times in a row, it would be quite safe to start a Martingale. Of course no one in history has ever witnessed such a feat.

Nav

The chance of hitting red is 50% every time. Previous results doesn't matter at all. I should think very carefully because you are fundamentally wrong.

Originally posted by Navrark
So if by some chance you have seen a Roulette ball land on Red 99 times in a row, it would be quite safe to start a Martingale. Of course no one in history has ever witnessed such a feat.

Can I please have your poker screen names? I'll even pay you for them.

Originally posted by Navrark
It is mathematically impossible for Red to hit 100 times in a row. You can run 999 trillion computer simulations and you will see it never happens once, not even close.

So what if you do an infinite number of computer simulations?