Play More Hands! Play More Hands?

Posted by icemonkey9 on Aug 11, 2009 in stakes | 2 comments

After showing a select few my results graph and numbers from last month I got one overwhelming comment repeated to me over and over - Play More Hands! With my win-rate being what it was/is (it's been the same this month so far) more hands in theory would mean more money. It would mean more experience. It would mean being able to move up ... quicker.

Last month I didn't really start playing until I got back from Vegas and the few days it took to move my bankroll from PokerStars to another poker room. As I've stated before I've kept the identity of this room and my username private for various reasons. Anyway in about 16 days I got in about 13,000 hands which over the course of 30 days would be around my all time high for a month (which I think was 21,000).

This month I've played about 7,000 hands through 10 days, a pace that puts me at 21,000 for the month.  Although I do wish I could play more in terms of finding another hour a day to play or play on a day like Saturday where I am too busy, I am finding that playing "more" probably wouldn't mean more money.

There are two things that got me thinking about this. First, there's a prop bet amongst some friends who are frickin' killing themselves trying to get gaudy hands-played volume in for the month. Second, a good friend who I like a lot, Jurn8, mentioned that he doesn't consider anything a large sample unless you've played 200k hands.

To address the prop bet of playing lots and lots of hands ... I tried to participate in these in the past and always failed save one time. I know some people thrive in these but I've learned I am not one of these types of people. I can't force myself to play during a tough time mentally or sacrifice time from family/work/writing. I'm only willing to play when the conditions are right for me - it's quiet, I don't have anything else on my plate and I can totally focus on the tables.

That moves into the second point - that a large sample of hands is 200k and you can only draw conclusions from that sized a sample (less would be premature). There seems to be a subliminal message that less hands played isn't a good sample or indicator of results. I think most of the guys I know are hung up on a popular Excel spreadsheet that shows how variance can swing you from huge winner to break-even player over a 100k hand sample.

It's a depressing thing to look at to be sure, but what is extremely understated is the Standard Deviation entered in to the data.  I have seen most people enter in numbers ranging from 55-69 for the Standard Deviation (taken from Hold'em Manager). For a Pot Limit Omaha 6max player I would expect this high a number. For a full ring player playing No Limit Hold'em, I wouldn't expect this number this high. This number would be high for people that play a high variance style, thus, their results would be less predictable. Usually this means players that play a big LAG (loose aggressive) or a lot of Heads Up or 6max play. Naturally, with such a high Standard Deviation, a much larger sample would be needed to draw results, most of which I would expect to include huge swings.

I'll have to look at my main computer (I'm on my laptop on the road right now) for my entire 100nl stats which is about 80k hands to find out my total Standard Deviation. However,  do have the last 22k hands since moving back to full ring and playing super-nitty and my Standard Deviation was 32. Plugging that into the spreadsheet showed that variance really doesn't play a major part in my 100k results. Sure, there were some graphs where I ended up less profitable, but for the most part it was a nice line going up during the course of the entire period.

So that brought me to the conclusion that both Jurn8 and myself just might be right in our arguments. For a player that plays a high variance style and game, 200k hands might not even be enough hands to draw conclusions.  For a player that plays a low variance style and low variance game, much less hands are needed to draw conclusions. Clearly, it would take a lot more statistical analysis and data modeling to find out exactly what that would be; much more so than I'm willing to commit to than I have superficially here in my blog.

The final point is this - you don't need to play 200k hands (necessarily) to have it be a good sample to draw conclusions from. If you are a historically steady player playing a low variance game (as indicated from a Standard Deviation less than, say, 40) you probably wouldn't need half that number. Clearly, I'm fighting for that point because that's where I perceive myself to exist.

For us "turtles" of the internet poker scene that only play one-hour sessions and seven to nine tables at a time, we're able to put all our focus on the tables. I absolutely 100% believe it's possible for other people to play 12, 16, 20 tables and still be able to give that 100% attention and focus. Nevetheless, I have recognized I am not one of these types, so rather than sacraficing win-rate and playing 14 tables @ 1.5BB/100, I'm playing seven tables @ 5.2BB/100.  The money, in the end, dictates my behavior because I am doing what is most profitable and keeps me happiest while playing. The wild card is entered with rewards like FPPs or Rakeback, where you could make up for the gap in profit with the rewards money. My counter to that is what is the value of lost income thanks to FPPs versus the reward of improved play and experience. Interesting concept.

For now I'll keep turtling away playing seven or eight tables for one-hour sessions and probably get in 20-25k hands a month. Ideally that means I'll keep winning between a 4.5-5.2BB/100 win-rate as well.  It's what works for me and keeps me happy, profitable and learning at the tables.  I would never presume that this same formula works for everyone and admire those that can play more just as profitable if not more. I believe that a poker player should not exceed their capacity and should know just what that capacity is before embarking on volume-based adventures.