You're a Bunch of Factors

How many hands would a player have to play at a particular level before they know they are a winning player at those particular stakes?

5 thousand hands?
20 thousand hands?
100 thousand hands?


We know that over time variance is reduced and we can tell who the better players are? but exactly how long will this take?

This could be extended to SNG games too. e.g. how many $6 SNG games would a player have to play before they knew they were a winning player at that level? 200? 1000? 5000?

I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this subject.

from discussions i have read, u need at least 10k hands in exactly the same conditions. i.e tables, stakes etc, but usually its more like 50k

i was reading the staking forum on 2p2 the other day, and they were saying to get staked u need to prove ur winnings over 50k hands, and for another SNG stake they quoted at least 1000 tourneys

also, to be considered a winning player, you should be beating the game by 5-10 BB/100 hands. any higher than 10 is super human, and anything over 2 is ok, but you should be able to get around 6 if you are any good.

cool thanks benny the cunt.

obviously i am writing this because i have had a good week of micro stakes fun. I have recently implemented some changes to my game which i think have improved it, but its hard to tell if i have improved or if im running goot.

i have got a tad over 7BB/100 hands and have played about 3000 hands this week. hopefully i can keep it up.

And for the general population who have no idea what you are talking about, maybe you could explain what you are actually on about instead of talking a different language.


No, I don't mean me. I'm just asking before they do.

Not sure what you are on about Pete. I think its all pretty straight forward. So if your not adding anything to the convo.....

maccatak11 wrote:i have got a tad over 7BB/100 hands and have played about 3000 hands this week. hopefully i can keep it up.

Explain to the masses exactly what that means, in English.

That way you don't appear to be having a conversation just amongst the two of you, and you might even be adding something to what would THEN be a conversation.


Smart arse.

pete, you obviously dont use poker tracker

win rate is measured as "big bets per 100 hands"

for some reason poker tracker uses double the big blind. i.e a big bet

so for a win rate of 7bb/100, at a 5/10c table, matthews win rate is $1.40 per 100 hands.

lol benny the cunt you obviously can't read.


What did I say?


Not for meeeeee.... for everyone else who will no doubt ask or be wondering.

sorry pete, i would usually include u as one of the masses

also, why does matthew need to write a novel explainign poker tracker stats when people that dont have poker tracker (i.e the masses) wont care?

No novel required, but if anyone is ever to learn anything then that's surely the way to not be helpful.
The question he asked is a good one, he just asked it (unintentionally) as though he was only speaking to about 5 people and I thought I'd jump in before Bob did (love you Bob). In Bob's defense, at least he'd bother to ask so he could learn something. For most others they'd just go "wtf?" and move along and learn nothing cos to them it'd look like a private convo between you and macca.... or Bruce and himself.

And stuff you.