Amount of hands to beat a level?

    • acerbikas
      acerbikas
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.01.2011 Posts: 229
      Hello,

      I was wondering what is your opinion on how many hands you require per level to know you are beating it. I know it is easy to assume that once your graph shows your profit margins growing larger and the EV line going up you are beating the level. But omaha is too swingy of a game and variance can strike you bad, so the graph may not always show the truth. Nevertheless, what is the average sample size to know you are beating it?

      I'd like to hear opinions on both, micro levels as well as low-mid stakes.

      And no, no bankroll-related shenanigans. They are too personal.
  • 6 replies
    • DrKillByDeath187
      DrKillByDeath187
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.05.2012 Posts: 52
      Most people move up according to bankroll size which happens rather quickly but I would say somewhere close to a quarter million to half a million for a definite answer on weather you're mountain climbing or skiing
    • Skodljivec
      Skodljivec
      Bronze
      Joined: 17.12.2011 Posts: 5,709
      Beating a level is overrated... If you have a bankroll for the higher limit, go for it. Even if you were winning because of a heater, there's no reason not to go higher. Perhaps you will continue on the heater and keep earining $.
    • Kyyberi
      Kyyberi
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 09.07.2010 Posts: 10,511
      Only the number of hands is a limiter subjec. As if you are a breakeven player, you can be winning a ton after 500K hands. You should see if you truly feel that you are a better player than most of the players. You can ask a better player to see your playing. Good player can see pretty soon if you are able to win at higher levels or not.
    • Ribbo
      Ribbo
      Bronze
      Joined: 25.06.2010 Posts: 6,157
      I stand by saying winning 100 buyins shows you can beat the stakes.

      However if your winrate slowed during that time it does show the other players improving whilst you didn't, so you should always make sure to keep focused.
    • acerbikas
      acerbikas
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.01.2011 Posts: 229
      Originally posted by Ribbo
      However if your winrate slowed during that time it does show the other players improving whilst you didn't, so you should always make sure to keep focused.
      I tend to have this issue. If I have a successful session (say, 6BIs/hour) and continue to go along I tend to lose focus and may end up squandering some of what I made. That said, sometimes I just go too lenient on my opponents and end up bluffcatching them and entangling in lotteries (all-ins or hyper aggressive raises pre).
    • Kyyberi
      Kyyberi
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 09.07.2010 Posts: 10,511
      My opinion is that sole winnings can't be the meter. Even breakeven player can win 100bin in 40K hands. Just use variance simulator and you will see that marginal winners/losers and breakeven players have huge variance. So if you look only your winnins, and not your playing skills, you might have hard times when you lose a lot at higher limits. Of course good BRM helps, but still it can be devastating to win at PLO10 a lot in short period, go to PLO25 and lose that all in few thousand hands.

      Winnings + honest evaluation of your skills = good