I had to do some estimates for Marsh's early hand count (there is over three weeks of action missed before his spreadsheet started, and some missing hand counts early on). Marsh, you have editing permission for that sheet, and I made cells containing my estimates green so you could see where I was estimating.
Overall, you average about 95 hands per session, but early on it seemed slightly smaller. I also used an early seven-day period to figure out about how many sessions you were playing a week. Since you said you played fewer sessions early on, I adjusted down accordingly, giving you 15 75-hand sessions a week for three weeks before your record-keeping really started. That's a fairly conservative estimate, feel free to adjust.
Anyway, it's pretty stunning how many more hands you've played than I have!
4 comments:
Yes I think that playing many hands is really important because you learn more and because it takes a lot of the short term variance out of the equation.
That being said, I am playing 6-handed which means you see WAY WAY more hands per hour. I am also 4 tabling, so that just multiplies that by a 4x. Its not really surprising at all how many more hands I have played.
I think the difference in our approaches are also apparent. I am sort of taking a bulk approach to it. I am trying to take in as many hands as I can, and take my edge that way. You are playing one table and trying to really get notes and reads going on the players you are with. It is really interesting to see the differences on paper.
Let's get Martin's seven hands in there!
:)
Yeah, it's interesting. Do you think my 75BB/100 hands win rate has anything to do with fish density at .02/.04? ;)
LOL 75BB/100 is pretty sick ahahha
75 BB/100 is unconscious and definitely a sign of the fish density. You are making 3 cents per hand. Assuming 100 hands/hour, you are $3/table/hour. Now you just have to get 20 tables going like on those YouTube videos and that's $60/hour! ;)
Post a Comment