The 10,000 hand benchmark and its application on Sky Poker's lack of stats

RAZZHANDS

So I hear that 10,000 hands is seen as the volume you have to play to cut out variance.

Assuming this is the case, does anyone have any advice on how I track this on the site given Sky Poker doesn't count your number of hands.

Does anyone else have this issue with the site, and how do you combat it?

I have asked 'help' if there is a way to check those stats, but they told me it is not possible,

It has tempted me to leave the site altogether, but I'd rather not, so any advice would be appreciated.

Cheers,

KW

Jac35

Hi Sp3cialk

You're right in that it's not possible to track cash hands on Sky. No huds are allowed and Sky have stated that they will be always be the case on here.

Sharkscope is there to track your results through sngs and mtts.

One way of tracking your progress is to check your account. If you're in the black, then you're doing ok!

ShaunyT

I think you can reset your stats anytime you want. So if you wanted to reset in game and take note of how many hands you've played that session. Although it would be a bit of a ball ache.

RAZZHANDS

In Response to Re: The 10,000 hand benchmark and its application on Sky Poker's lack of stats:

Hi Sp3cialk You're right in that it's not possible to track cash hands on Sky. No huds are allowed and Sky have stated that they will be always be the case on here. Sharkscope is there to track your results through sngs and mtts. One way of tracking your progress is to check your account. If you're in the black, then you're doing ok!
Posted by Jac35

Thanks Jac.

Wasn't wanting to use a HUD, just know how many hands I had played over a stetch of time.

Appreciate that black is good and red is bad though!

Cheers

RAZZHANDS

In Response to Re: The 10,000 hand benchmark and its application on Sky Poker's lack of stats:

I think you can reset your stats anytime you want. So if you wanted to reset in game and take note of how many hands you've played that session. Although it would be a bit of a ball ache.
Posted by ShaunyT

I guess it's going to have to be the ball ache!

Goethe

In Response to The 10,000 hand benchmark and its application on Sky Poker's lack of stats:

So I hear that 10,000 hands is seen as the volume you have to play to cut out variance . . .
Posted by Sp3cialK

You hear wrong . . . . even with several 000,000s under your belt confidence levels are still well short of 100%. Try a couple of million, and these will move up into the high 90% area. Keep grinding. . . . .

Goethe

Oops . . . I forgot to mention, even after you do get many 000,000s of hands under your belt, it doesn't "cut out the variance". It's always there. It's impact just becomes less and less significant when compared to the total volume of your historic play, and the measure of your resultant wins/losses when compared to the total amount you've put across the felt.

Here's something I contributed to a blackjack forum (my preferred game, or it was) a while back - a different game, but the underlying basis remains the same. It was in response to a question around at what point you can expect the variance roller coaster ride to ease off:-

" . . . The critical issue is the variance. People frequently talk about the "long term" and some calculate the number of hands to reach "n0" where their results, in theory, should be close to the mathematical expectation. But the truth of the matter is that the variance doesn't just go away when this point is achieved - it just represents something different based on a different basis of measurement. The roller coaster ride doesn't become a shunt across the flats.

Two examples, a new player and a many years served seasoned one both set out to play a game with an EV of +1% using the same bet spreads etc etc. The new player brings $1,000 to the felt, turns it over three times and loses the lot. Expectation is a win of $30 (+1%), actual result is a loss of $1,000 (-33.3%); his loss is 100% of his lifetime wagering at that point. Variance has taken his money.

The second player has played for many years and over this period has wagered $6m. He also loses $1,000, but this represents just 1/60 of 1% of his lifetime wagering - statistically insignificant and very different proportion of the expectation from player 1 who lost 100%.

But . . . . they've both lost $1,000 playing the same game . . . . . . "


When you've been unlucky, and the variance fairy has relieved you of a significant amount of money over a short period (a "beat" if you like), I'm not sure where the comfort is in knowing that your losses, when viewed relatively to your lifetime's play, are within one standard deviation of your estimated EV??

With regard to recording your results, I've found that the hand histories from SkyPoker (for cash games) make it a fairly easy exercise to copy and paste them into a spreadsheet - much easier than on another site I played on for a short while, where analysing past play results from the data provided was a pain.

RAZZHANDS

In Response to Re: The 10,000 hand benchmark and its application on Sky Poker's lack of stats:

Oops . . . I forgot to mention, even after you do get many 000,000s of hands under your belt, it doesn't "cut out the variance". It's always there. It's impact just becomes less and less significant when compared to the total volume of your historic play, and the measure of your resultant wins/losses when compared to the total amount you've put across the felt. Here's something I contributed to a blackjack forum (my preferred game, or it was) a while back - a different game, but the underlying basis remains the same. It was in response to a question around at what point you can expect the variance roller coaster ride to ease off:- " . . . The critical issue is the variance. People frequently talk about the "long term" and some calculate the number of hands to reach "n0" where their results, in theory, should be close to the mathematical expectation. But the truth of the matter is that the variance doesn't just go away when this point is achieved - it just represents something different based on a different basis of measurement. The roller coaster ride doesn't become a shunt across the flats. Two examples, a new player and a many years served seasoned one both set out to play a game with an EV of +1% using the same bet spreads etc etc. The new player brings $1,000 to the felt, turns it over three times and loses the lot. Expectation is a win of $30 (+1%), actual result is a loss of $1,000 (-33.3%); his loss is 100% of his lifetime wagering at that point. Variance has taken his money. The second player has played for many years and over this period has wagered $6m. He also loses $1,000, but this represents just 1/60 of 1% of his lifetime wagering - statistically insignificant and very different proportion of the expectation from player 1 who lost 100%. But . . . . they've both lost $1,000 playing the same game . . . . . . " When you've been unlucky, and the variance fairy has relieved you of a significant amount of money over a short period (a "beat" if you like), I'm not sure where the comfort is in knowing that your losses, when viewed relatively to your lifetime's play, are within one standard deviation of your estimated EV?? With regard to recording your results, I've found that the hand histories from SkyPoker (for cash games) make it a fairly easy exercise to copy and paste them into a spreadsheet - much easier than on another site I played on for a short while, where analysing past play results from the data provided was a pain.
Posted by Goethe

Thanks for the reply - appreciate the effort and opinion.

Don't disagree with what you've said, and take the point that variance doesn't completely disappear.

(Obviously a but coming...)

Only thing I would say is that with the example you've posted, if you play the same blind level cash game over this undecided hand sample, beats and good luck will mean the same values.

Different if you get a beat on the bubble of a big tournament compared to a local pub game defeat, but surely same level and similar amounts of money should level some of those things out.

I'm no maths man, and not arguing, just interested to hear what you would think of that?

Goethe

You're right - in theory the positive and negative variance should cancel each other out over the "long run" and what you should be left with when netting these off is the naked EV for the game you play, your style of playing it and who you play it with. The dilemma is though that whilst the longer you play, the less significant the variance (wins/losses) gets compared to your total bets to date, it will be considerably more significant when compared to your bankroll - which is unlikely to increase as much, and as consistently, as your total bets to date. This is the reason that being adequately capitalised to avoid the possibility of tapping out is an important part of the equation. As with so many aspects of the numbers, it all depends on what you measure or compare.

I have been told by someone who played blackjack with an edge that he thought that no-limit hold'em had the lower variance of the two games. My experience is quite to the contrary.

Good cards.