how often do you have winning sessions?

Hey guys,

I was reading an article on cardrunners today by muddywater, "leave your ego and emotions at home" and I found one line pretty interesting:

"Poker is a long term game. If you consistently get your money in as a favorite, you will win money in the long run. It is that simple. Losing on particular hand to a bad beat means nothing in the long run. In fact, it is a necessity of the game. In the length of a poker career a player is going to take more incredibly tough beats than he or she can imagine, but that doesn?t matter. What matters is that one consistently gets their money in as the favorite. This should be a constant thought in one?s head during a playing session. Always remember that approximately 40% of your sessions are going to be losing sessions and know that is just a part of the game one plays."

I wasn't sure what my thoughts on this were. Do you all agree that even a winning player will only win 60% of all the sessions they play?

That depends on alot of things not least of all how long a session is.

The same (winning) player who plays for 3 hours is much more likely to have a winning session than when he plays for 1 hour.

Id say I win probably around half of my sessions but Ive never actually counted it.

really depends on your style

I know high-variance players (myself depending on "mood" and stuff) who have almost as many losing as winning sessions but whose winning sessions win more than their losing sessions lose.

Is each session defined as time played or tables played?

40% sounds about right for me.
I play a mix of 1-3 hour sessions, of course my 1 hour sessions are losing more frequently than my 3 hour.

PT says I win 52% of session over 607 sessions. I don't know what it considers a session though. Its about 54k hands. ~3ptbb/100

PT considers every table a session.

mines definitly 55-60% of sessions won.

51.83% of the tables I've played on in 2007 have finished up (at 3.15ptbb/100 over 45.3k hands)

My poker tracker session winning rate is 51.74% (at 3.19ptBB/100 over 39K hands), however I think I win about 60% of my sessions.

And whatever biondino, you stat-copycat.

I only have 49.5% winning sessions. But I usually quit pretty fast if things go bad and take a break for 30 min. So my winning sessions are way longer though.

From PT:

last 45,000 hands of mostly 6max 25NL and 50Nl my winning % is only 43.41%.

My winrate was 4.84 bb/100 over that time period

I have been running better since April 1 7,983 hands 7.29 BB/100 but still only winning 46.18% of sessions

Its interesting that winning players on FTR can have such a wide range of "% of sessions won" ranging from low 40's to 60.

Though I guess that depends a lot on what we consider a "session".. where for me I'd imagine one constant sitting in a day.. for however many hours.. is all one session.

I guess the people with lower sessions won, yet are still winning, must be very good at leaving when things are going well. Avoiding those big disaster days.

Does anyone set a limit on how many buyins they will allow themselves to lose in a day (session) before taking a break that day, and getting back to it the next?

Originally Posted by griffey24

Its interesting that winning players on FTR can have such a wide range of "% of sessions won" ranging from low 40's to 60.

A lot of people are basing these off PT stats which considers every table you play a "session."

In Ace on the River, Greenstein mentions a win percentage of 56% when he was playing LHE (200/400 at the time I think) . The more important stat is that on average his winning sessions were larger than his losing sessions. I'm sure you're going to find that's the case with any consistent winner.

Originally Posted by DaNutsInYoEye

Originally Posted by griffey24

Its interesting that winning players on FTR can have such a wide range of "% of sessions won" ranging from low 40's to 60.

A lot of people are basing these off PT stats which considers every table you play a "session."

In Ace on the River, Greenstein mentions a win percentage of 56% when he was playing LHE (200/400 at the time I think) . The more important stat is that on average his winning sessions were larger than his losing sessions. I'm sure you're going to find that's the case with any consistent winner.

this is really really important

Ppl who book huge losses at a single table are often playing frustrated, negreanu-type "get-even" poker. It's not a good way to make money. Smart players leave when the dynamic is bad for their style/mood so the losses are capped.