ONLY EIGHT WINNING STARTING HANDS

Haven't played many hands 3.2K. I have found so far there are only eight starting hands that are winners at 5NL.

AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AQs, AJs, ATs

And KK, QQ are negative hands per 100. Qs are my third highest money winner behind AA, AQs. QQ are -2.87/100 and KK are -.12/100. Even though the AA, KK, QQ are my highest net producing hands (KK fifth) I am down 6BI because I play them and play them aggressively. :oops:

Really getting to be a pain in the ass to work to get even money only to lose four or five big pots in a row with those hands. :x

Wasn't going to post it but what the hell. I suck...

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/v...suck_graph.png

http://responsiblemarketing.com/blog...enpatience.jpg

All of the things you think you are seeing are because of your extremely small sample size. Take into consideration the 2.5k hand session I just played: my biggest winner was A2s. You're only dealt big pairs a handful of times on average in 3k hands, so it's very hard for them to perform near their real expectation.

Continue playing until you have about 20k hands at 5nl, and then post your stats including the general tab, your position stats, and your graph that shows sd winnings, non-sd winnings, and total winnings. Good luck.

Yes indeed: I want patience and right damn now! My post was more of finding an avenue to vent. And I do realize what you say is true. My stats are dropping from my beginning of 25/12/3 +/- to 12/8/5 +/- currently. Still having difficulty putting people on hands or range of hands that I am certain would have saved me some grief. Not sure how to do that though. Seems at 5NL level everyone is AP/ATC and raise/bet/call until they hit their miracle on the last two streets to SD. But I am sure you have heard this lament before ;)

Guess I am going to have to get used to the idea of multi tabling. :shock:

Thanks for the encouragement and allowing me to vent.

You also need to consider the fact that the more hands you play horribly, the less likely goodish hands are to be profitable for you.

Or put another way. The better you play, the more hands you can play profitably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelion

You also need to consider the fact that the more hands you play horribly, the less likely goodish hands are to be profitable for you.

Or put another way. The better you play, the more hands you can play profitably.

---

Yes, that is why I put the shocky emoticon at the end - I was being a bit sarcastic. On the other hand playing 20k hands one table at a time is about 700 hours or 2-3 years for me.

There can be no doubt I have played some hands horribly and others not for max value - maybe I'll get better. :roll:

there are many many poker players in the world who play 3k hands before they eat breakfast...literally. just a super small hand sample

I eat 3000 hands for breakfast.

My girl plays 6max 2NL for shits and giggles, so she doesn't put much effort into learning how to play properly. In short, she's a fish. Over 3k hands she can either win 15 buy ins or lose that much.

Bottom line, suuuuuuper small sample, it don't mean much. You're probably not running well, so not hitting much with anything. Hey at least your big hands are holding up! You'll hear about much worse. A few months ago I had a month with around 35k hands with KK being a loser for about 5 buy ins. Granted I probably overplayed a few of them but you get the idea.

Reading brings a couple things to mind.

Quote:

---

there are many many poker players in the world who play 3k hands before they eat breakfast...literally.

---

Before breakfast? that has to be like 2 hour session? So they are running like a 12 - 16 tables? Don't ever want to go there.

But seriously, maybe work my way up to 3 or 4. I can manage 3 now but am definitely not learning anything accept how to manage the windows. But at any rate, working multiple tables must require a larger than normal bankroll for whatever level you are at. I started with $150 account and of course that has been maliciously reduced to $120 current. The question is what factor would be used against normal bankroll to increase in regard to number of tables played? Is it 1:1; .5:1; .25:1 ?

I don't think any of us were advising you to play more tables, in fact, until you're very comfortable stick to your 2-3 tables. When you feel like you're very comfortable with your 2-3 tables and you can take notes and get reads and still have time then open up one more.

It also depends on what format you play. It's easier to play more tables if you play FL, as opposed to 6max, for example.

All we're saying is 3k hands is a very small sample to say which hands are winners or losers (or to give any sort of useful feedback, for that matter). 10k is probably the smallest chunk you want for a review. Patience is one of the hardest things to manage in poker for a lot of players. Even Ivey says he has/had a big problem with patience.

My first 3000 hands of a particular stake look like this for this month and I've got over 100k of hands played at that stake where I was a significant winner. It can happen. But do post some hands for review/drop down for awhile etc.