what kind of variance do you normally have?

very standard variance. but check your play anyway, and keep studying how to play better.

the most i ever lost at NL10 consequtively was 18 BI playing 24 tables....lol

Very normal.

std

should email stars, I think the staff flagged your acct with the doomswitch.

seriously though, just shake it off and keep going

On November 13 2008 19:40 Shenny wrote: just shake it off and keep going

thanks for the encouragement guys. I'm up 4 BI now But, I was hoping someone could give me some actual numbers, though. At what point do I have to consider the idea that I'm losing money because I'm a bad player, and not just because of varience?

welcome to poker

Variance is very dependent on your play style. If you are a nit, losing 10 BI might mean you're doing something wrong, as a very aggressive player, it's pretty standard. Important thing is to just go over your hands and make sure you're playing them right. Shit happens on the river.

10 buy-ins is the standard downswing... although it is standard really you should be thinking about moving down and checking your hands anyway... especially if you don't have a large BR.
how can anyone tell that they are playing bad? most just by looking at hands they have lost. if there is no obvious tilt or spew then it might be time to get someone else to check your play, maybe by making a video of you playing then paying a good player to watch it.

On the same note, what do you guys think is a decent sample size? 100k hands?

On November 13 2008 22:56 mikeymoo wrote: On the same note, what do you guys think is a decent sample size? 100k hands?

500k. The first 250 kinda defines who you are, and the next 250 proves whether or not you change. Be it loser or winner.

After 20k at NL10 you have a pretty good idea. What the hell 500k ? Nobody stays at NL10 for so many hands.

I'm not disagreeing (yet), but I'd just like to know where the number "250k" came from to make a winrate statistically significant.

i dont think winrates are like ever statistically significant at a single stake
confidence intervals of 95% must be huge compared to single digit bb/100's even with a 100k sample size

I didnt mean 250k or even 500k at a single limit. I meant in your entire poker career. If you are a losing player no matter what limit you play at after 500k, it's probably time to hang it up. But you shouldnt really consider yourself to know anything about the game until you hit 250k. Not that that makes you a pro suddenly, but I consider anyone with < 250k hands a novice, winner or not.