Number of Pokertracker hands

Daniel Rees · Jan 31, 2008

Hi all, this is my first post here and I just wanted to give a thumbs up for a great site and ask a question.

Been using Pokertracker recently and was wondering how many hands I needed to upload before I start to look at the figures objectively. I'm just about at 2000 hands uploaded at the moment. Is this a big enough sample to start looking for leaks with or should I keep going till it's higher?

Cheers
Daniel

tenbob · Jan 31, 2008

Nowhere near it. I have 100K hands on PT and im still finding leaks. But the sooner you start your anyalsis the better.

WVHillbilly · Jan 31, 2008

Not too soon to start looking but you can't make a definitive conclusions based that many hands.

Munchrs · Feb 1, 2008

WVHillbilly said:
you can't make a definitive conclusions based that many hands.

^^^^ this

I say get 10k hands then start looking and making very minor adjustmints then antoher 10k and ananlyse again to see if adjustments are increasing you winrate.

Daniel Rees · Feb 6, 2008

Thanks for the advice guys.

I'm gonna build up the hads a bit more I think, before I start to take much notice of it.

Cheers
Daniel

BallsASteel · Feb 6, 2008

Just a thought, at 40-50 hands per hour, how many hours is 100,000 hands? (About 2000 hours minimum which would be the equivalent of a year at a full time job.) And, how much money have you put at risk to reach 100,000 hands? (Do you play $.25/$.50 NL? Are you playing average post of $4? Are you in 1 out of 5 pots? I'm making up some stats on the spot. Then you have put $4 x 2000 pots or $8000 at risk if you are playing minimal games....) What I am pointing out, this is some serious time and coin that you are already out before you have statistics that you find analytically meaningful. It is important that you do this, but BY NO MEANS, should anyone wait to find out how they can improve their game by means of stats. I have long been a proponent of stats being a little lower than lying in giving you information, lol. Use primary information first and you will be many steps ahead than if you use stats. Stats follow good strategy. Sorry to get on a rant, but I have lived around the academic world to long. I find it so annoying the many fallacies that so many find in numbers. OK, sermon over... return to your normal activities. (P.S. don't ignore the numbers, just don't wait for them

!)

tenbob · Feb 6, 2008

BallsASteel said:
Just a thought, at 40-50 hands per hour, how many hours is 100,000 hands? (About 2000 hours minimum which would be the equivalent of a year at a full time job.) And, how much money have you put at risk to reach 100,000 hands? (Do you play $.25/$.50 NL? Are you playing average post of $4? Are you in 1 out of 5 pots? I'm making up some stats on the spot. Then you have put $4 x 2000 pots or $8000 at risk if you are playing minimal games....) What I am pointing out, this is some serious time and coin that you are already out before you have statistics that you find analytically meaningful. It is important that you do this, but BY NO MEANS, should anyone wait to find out how they can improve their game by means of stats. I have long been a proponent of stats being a little lower than lying in giving you information, lol. Use primary information first and you will be many steps ahead than if you use stats. Stats follow good strategy. Sorry to get on a rant, but I have lived around the academic world to long. I find it so annoying the many fallacies that so many find in numbers. OK, sermon over... return to your normal activities. (P.S. don't ignore the numbers, just don't wait for them !)

Ive been moving up as i play. Your time figures are also way off, I play on-line you know

vanquish · Feb 6, 2008

40 hands per hour is too little imo

Munchrs · Feb 6, 2008

at FR 60 hands per hour per table is my average. So if i play 3 table it would be 60*3 so 180 hands etc.

Alon Ipser · Feb 6, 2008

BallsASteel said:
What I am pointing out, this is some serious time and coin that you are already out before you have statistics that you find analytically meaningful.

You assume he's losing?

BallsASteel · Feb 8, 2008

No, not assuming he's losing, I said that's the minimum he's putting "at risk". And, even if you are playing three tables at a time, you still are putting in "table-hours" even if you are putting it in at triple time. I'm just saying, learning faster is better than waiting for the stats. Not that the stats are bad at all. In fact, they are a vital asset to identify things you might miss. I just think people can draw inaccurate conclusion from stats at times. They need to be recognized for what they are, a supporting tool. Are we coppacetic (can I even spell that word???)?

Search

Number of Pokertracker hands

Daniel Rees

Rising Star

tenbob

Legend

WVHillbilly

Legend

Munchrs

Legend

Daniel Rees

Rising Star

BallsASteel

Rising Star

tenbob

Legend

vanquish

Legend

Munchrs

Legend

Alon Ipser

Cardschat Elite

BallsASteel

Rising Star

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us