how mutch hands to play??

hi, how mutch you think player need to play to know your winning in long run??10000?more??

id start with basic spelling before poker

1 mirrion sounds good

Your looking at at least 100,000 but your winrate doesn't really matter (so long as it its not -ve obv!)

Just concentrate on getting better and moving out of the micros.
You'll encounter so many different players and you'll hopefully get better so your win rate wont be the same over time anyway.

ok, soory for bad speling(english is my 3 languige)

tnx guys for replay

I've played 15,000 already this month. The thing about online poker is that we get about 100 hands every hour for each table and play between 3-24 tables so 10,000 hands could be a month or a day depending on the person. You don't get better playing hands, you get better studying. Unless you can play about 1,000,000 hands then maybe you will learn something.

"You don't get better playing hands..."

I disagree with this. From a beginner's point of view, the first 50k hands are going to be a massive learning curve. How many players stopped calling ace rag to a raise because they found they were dominated too often? That's learning through playing hands, it's learning through experience. There's some people you can tell a hundred times to fold AJ to a pre flop reraise, but do they listen? Some people don't listen to words, but they do listen to their decreasing stack/bankroll.

You don't get better doing things wrong. You have a distorted opinion of how things are learned because you have found FTR. You would never learn that in 50K hands without someone or something telling you to fold it. Words like "dominated" and "bankroll" are a little beyond most micro/rec players that just deposit and play.

1 Million sounds good. 500k is pretty decent. - Ideally you won't stay at one level long enough to know your true winrate.

It really isn't that important.

Don't try to get in massive volume. Don't study more than you play either... find a balance that works for you.

"You don't get better doing things wrong."

I really don't agree with this, but it's not really a poker topic, it's more a matter of philosophy. People learn from their mistakes in all walks of life. The key is to realise what you did wrong, and then you can avoid doing it again. Somethimes you might have to make a mistake to know it's a mistake, although I can't think of an example that relates to poker. I could probably illustrate my point with chess; perhaps I make a mistake in the opening against a much stronger player, I might not realise I made a mistake until eight moves later, when he wins a pawn. After the game, if I study the opening, knowing how the stronger play responded, then I should be able to determine what the bad move in the opening was, and ensure I do not make that same mistake again.

It is better to improve without making mistakes, of course, but one improves in whatever they are doing if they never make the same mistake twice.

"You don't get better doing things wrong."

When i started playing online anytime I got 3 bet by a full stack i called with any pp to set mine. Sometimes i hit sets and thought about how clever i was, some times i missed. Then one day some guys at ftr told me to look over my HH and do some math and i started laughing.

Then again i think i really learned the importance of proper note taking from writing stuff down then later looking back at it and thinking, "how would this ever help me?"

Yea your right Ongbonga, cause every time you make a mistake in poker you get instant feedback that you were wrong, because you lose the pot obviously. So all we need to do is lose a pot doing something once and we will never do that again.

Well, sometimes, in poker, we win a big pot when we do something wrong. This, naturally, is more difficult to consider a mistake, especially from a beginner's point of view. But if someone calls a pot size all in with a flush draw on the turn, and hits the river, it was still a mistake, despite the pot coming our way. This kind of mistake of course is made through lack of education, and since it was profitable on this occasion, most people who are prepared to call pot size bets with flush draws would not even consider that they just made a mistake. No-one's going to learn from their mistake if it doesn't hurt, we need to call ten pot size bets with our flush draw, and know that we have lost more than we won, before we know it's a mistake (unless we study, then we should know it's a mistake before we even sit down).

And on the flip side, losing a pot is not an indication we did something wrong. In the same hand as in the above paragraph, whoever shoved did something right, yet he lost the pot. But of course, he only needs to play this hand ten times before he can see it's hugely profitable.

lol

Ok, I missed the sarcasm first time around and thought you were just stupid, my bad. But your argument that you cannot learn through mistakes is clearly flawed.

Originally Posted by edgear

ok, soory for bad speling(english is my 3 languige)

You don't need to be sorry. Most Americans can only speak one language.

Originally Posted by PlayToWin

You don't need to be sorry. Most Americans can only speak one language.

so true.
and i would say at least 100k hands assuming you arent a crazy multitabler

Heaters and downswongs can last tens of thousands of hands. I'd go with the same numbers as others have said on here and say at 100k hands you will JUST begin to understand where you are at in terms of an actual winning or losing player.

Originally Posted by runrrunrstr8

Heaters and downswongs can last tens of thousands of hands. I'd go with the same numbers as others have said on here and say at 100k hands you will JUST begin to understand where you are at in terms of an actual winning or losing player.

I'm pretty sure 100k is a really huge sample to see if you're actually winning or losing in microstakes games. I'd go with something like 15-20k to get an idea if you're winning or not, and 100k should give you somewhat of an idea of your winrate imo.

You could easily be a -1bb/100 losing player and run at 1-3bb/100 for 20k-30k hands. It's pretty normal for winning players to have 30k hand stretches where they lose money so it would make sense that if a 2-4bb/100 winner can lose for that many hands the inverse would be true as well hence that sample size being insufficient.

with all that in mind, don't make prejudgments on your play too early and at the same time just keep a consistent balance with your study/play ratio.

goodluck at the tables!