20,000 Hands

[cardcore 0]

I posted this in NL strategy, but was asked to move it to general. Here it is. 20,000 hands, starting from February 1. If I have 3 more weeks like this it's a $15k month? Would be nice... My favorite part is the end. This is all on Cake. I haven't tracked my stats before February, and to be honest haven't taken poker seriously for quite a long time. Trying to turn over a new leaf and actually become a winning player. Looks like it's working out so far.edit: I just noticed the old thread was moved here, sorry for double post.

[Jordan 1]

conversely.i should never play poker. or i'll lose $1 hand (down 7k cause of xfer rate $ to euro)- Jordan

[Veener Schnitz 0]

[ x ] thread needs hand history posts

[king1305 0]

[X] OP ran good over 20k hand sample size

[GWCGWC 83]

Cake doesn't support PokerTracker so how'd you keep track of your results?Are you playing higher than whatever micro limit you were going to start with?Can you ask Mercedes if she'll be my valentine?

[king1305 0]

Cake doesn't support PokerTracker so how'd you keep track of your results?

theres ways

[cardcore 0]

Cake doesn't support PokerTracker so how'd you keep track of your results?Are you playing higher than whatever micro limit you were going to start with?Can you ask Mercedes if she'll be my valentine?

CakeConverter converts Cake HH's to Pokerstars HH's.This graph is 12k hands at 50nl, 7k hands at 100nl, about 500 hands at 2/4nl, and the end is shortstacking 5/10 NL, doubling, doubling, losing a big pot, doubling again, quitting.OK

[ilovejulie 0]

[X] OP ran good over 20k hand sample size

I do hope this comment isn't to imply that 20,000 hands is too small a sample size to be meaningful. I've seen so many ignorant posts about sample size and variance. Things like "Dude, 17,000,000 hands is still subject to so much variance. Like, you've just been getting lucky and need way more hands to be able to claim you are a winning player". Where does the madness end? And where's Actuary when we need him?Congrats CardCore! That's clearly good playing.

[chgocubs99 0]

I do hope this comment isn't to imply that 20,000 hands is too small a sample size to be meaningful. I've seen so many ignorant posts about sample size and variance. Things like "Dude, 17,000,000 hands is still subject to so much variance. Like, you've just been getting lucky and need way more hands to be able to claim you are a winning player". Where does the madness end? And where's Actuary when we need him?Congrats CardCore! That's clearly good playing.

I don't know much about anything, but I do know 20K hands is NOT a significant sample size. Just look at the graph...from hand 3K to about 16K he breaks even. So if 13K hands was a significant sample size, from that stretch of hands we would determine he is a breakeven player. But add in 7K more hands and suddenly this is a great sample? No. Not to mention people's graphs in the Challenge thread and, from what I've heard, other forums, where huge long term winning players go 50-60K hands as losing players.

[SlapStick 0]

Good work

[cardcore 0]

I don't know much about anything, but I do know 20K hands is NOT a significant sample size. Just look at the graph...from hand 3K to about 16K he breaks even. So if 13K hands was a significant sample size, from that stretch of hands we would determine he is a breakeven player. But add in 7K more hands and suddenly this is a great sample? No. Not to mention people's graphs in the Challenge thread and, from what I've heard, other forums, where huge long term winning players go 50-60K hands as losing players.

20k is not a significant sample size. I'm looking to play 80k hands this month, so hopefully that will be a large enough sample size to draw some numbers out of.This graph is really just a testament to the first month in like two years that I'm taking poker seriously, and I've started off quite well, knock on wood.I played another 600 hand session and won 4.5 buyins at $100nl, and I've also got about $700 in rakeback at the moment. Things are looking good for the moment.

[chgocubs99 0]

20k is not a significant sample size. I'm looking to play 80k hands this month, so hopefully that will be a large enough sample size to draw some numbers out of.This graph is really just a testament to the first month in like two years that I'm taking poker seriously, and I've started off quite well, knock on wood.I played another 600 hand session and won 4.5 buyins at $100nl, and I've also got about $700 in rakeback at the moment. Things are looking good for the moment.

Congrats, I wish I had the disipline to do that. Obv my response was not towards you, but to the person that was implying that 20K was a significant sample size. Keep it up.

[ah2388 0]

im on a 1,00000000000,0000000,0000,00,0 k hand losing stretch, clearly not a large enough sample sizelolgenerally i think thta its accepted that 100k hands is about the right numberto determine your overall winratesick upswing op, keep it up

[king1305 0]

20k is not a significant sample size. I'm looking to play 80k hands this month, so hopefully that will be a large enough sample size to draw some numbers out of.This graph is really just a testament to the first month in like two years that I'm taking poker seriously, and I've started off quite well, knock on wood.I played another 600 hand session and won 4.5 buyins at $100nl, and I've also got about $700 in rakeback at the moment. Things are looking good for the moment.

God bless your little heart for being able to play that many hands on Cake.You must have a 700in monitor.

[cardcore 0]

God bless your little heart for being able to play that many hands on Cake.You must have a 700in monitor.

24 inch, 6 tabling =pi happen to like Cake more than any other site i've played on in recent memory tbqh