Can't even win at microstakes.

100K hands? I'm not sure I can afford to last that long considering how badly I'm bleeding.

Originally posted by er0men0s
results are irrelevant until you have a big enough sample.

I noticed this comment on one of the replies to "can't even win at microstakes."

Kind of curious as to how big is a big enough sample. I'm like this gut and have over 7000 hands to my credit but I'm still losing. (cash games, that is.) Is this variance or is there enough data to make some evals of my play. For example, I tend to carry Top Pair good kicker too far. the only time I can assure I have a reasonable chance at success is when i have best kicker with my top pair. I do win some of these SD's but lose about 60% of them to a better kicker. I usually use 10 or better as my default kicker, but even against fish i lose more than I win.

Anyway, just rambling. Was curious about any thoughts you all may have.

Hi, er0men0s,
Welcome to PokerStrategy.com !

May I ask what game/stakes you're playing?

Unless you have had considerable experience, playing anything above NL5 is dodgy.

Why not take advantage of one of the free money offers and starting building some strategy points?

As soon as you're bronze, a wealth of material opens up.

Be sure to take advantage of the live coachings too.

Best of luck,
--VS

Thanks for the advice. I will probably join up at a higher level since I recently received an email stating that one of your offers is only $60 a year. A very reasonable offer as the info I've been getting from the free level has been helpful already.

Originally posted by martinemem
Lets say you are be over 100k hands - varianse. Now lets say you lose 10bb pr 100 hands over 100k hands. Then its unlikely to be varianse.

You can however easy be a winning player of around 1-4bb pr 100 hands and lose 1bb pr 100 hands on 100k hands.

Here is some stuff from the variance simulator:

I simulated 1000 players with winrate of 0bb/100, playing 100K hands. Here are the luckiest and unluckiest players:

The luckiest is winning +10bb/100 and the unluckiest is losing -10bb/100.

If we do the same simulation with expected winrate of +10bb/100, the luckiest and unluckiest graphs are:

So even the unluckiest one is still breakeven.

If we increase the winrate to 15bb/100, the unluckiest one is winning with +5bb/100.

The point is that if expected winrate is close to breakeven, the variance can be a bitch. Two similar players, but one is crushing the games and other one is losing a lot. But if they both increase their winrate, it becomes more unlikely that either one ends up losing money.

But as OP has his EV line going down besides winnigs like that, it is very unlikely that it's due the variance. Start fixing those leaks and study a lot. You have all the tools needed here in PokerStrategy.

Kyyberi's chart got me to checking something. My total win rate from the time I restarted playing is -15.88 BB/100. This was for about 8000 hands. On May 7 I made some adjustments (and have been continuing to do so) and the last 3500 hands my win rate has improved to a whopping 1.95 BB/100. Woo hoo! Positive territory!

Anyway, I know these samples are small but I think i just might be able to barely hold on for awhile while I continue to use your site to build my skills. The next time you guys hear from me, I'll probably be a silver level and have some more articles and vids under my belt.

stop limping man

you have 19vpip 11% PFR from EP
also 12% 3bet
Pretty sure this means you limp 3bet too and pretty often