Statisticly the numbers have to even out, like flipping a coin. Eventually you will have heads and tails 50% of the time. Over enough hands you should get your share of the good cards. The only questions is is how many hands do you have to play before this happens, could be quite a few thousand, for sure. As far as playing, if you are just starting out, you will have to keep studying, playing, analyzing with PT, and play quite a few thousand hands, before you can play reasonably well, I am finding out. I agree with TW, you have to play the cards, but I do not think a new player is prepared for the swings.
Appreciate the responses from the expierenced guys.

Griz,

You're absolutely correct, that in the "long run", the numbers will of course statistically even out. You've also nailed the fact that you will have to play several thousands of hands (I'm thinking this number is actually more likely to be in the tens of thousands of hands) before you can play reasonably well.

What you are alluding to re: swings is certainly a key point. However, what I think Hofstra was trying to caution you against is that even though with a sample set of, say, 100k hands, you should be pretty likely to see AA ~452 times, the likelihood of what will happen on the 100,001st hand has absolutely no bearing on the results of the past 100,000 hands. That's because each deal is mutually exclusive of any prior deals. So while there is an incredibly tiny probability that you will see AA, say, 100 times in a row, the probabilty does exist (it has to, by definition). However, even though you may have seen AA 100 times in a row, there is absolutely no way to predict whether or not you will see AA on the 101st hand.

What is the point of my rambling? Well, it's simply to say that long-term probability will converge as you increase your sample set. However, you must be very careful to not rely on your sample set of past actions as being an influence on future events. This is the point TW was trying to make - that you really have to play the cards as they are dealt. It's also the point Hofstra made - that there is a gambler's fallacy that just because something happened (or didn't happen) X times in a row, it will be more (or less) likely to happen on the X+1 time.

So I sense that you're concerned about all of this statistics mumbo-jumbo, because you want to have some idea of how long it may take before your skills and abilities can consistently show you are a long-term winner. This is certainly the question I think every novice-to-intermediate player asks himself - because there is a lot of self-imposed doubt in one's ability. Just because you may have played a hand correctly, mathematically, does not mean that you will be a winner. So of course, this means two things: you must have (a) a large enough bankroll to support the game you are trying to play and (b) you must have the drive to constantly improve your game by making the correct decisions, regardless of whether or not those decisions win you money.

The problem with (a) is, that while you can pull out some number (like 300 BBs) for a starting bankroll, the calculations involved all assume that you are a long-term winner - yet this seemingly contradicts (b), because you don't yet know if you're a long-term winner. Quite a dilemma, eh? Well, the fact is, that I think everyone tends to misinterpret their abilities after a long streak in either directions. We tend to overestimate our play after a long winning streak, and we tend to underestimate our play after a long losing streak (the latter being the situation I'm currently facing myself... ). The key to improving your game and placing yourself squarely into the "winning player" camp is to not let the outcomes of your past hands affect the outcome of your future hands. This is sort of the underlying theme behind my post, as well as TW's and Hofstra's. You should be wary of letting the statistics of your past play belie your actual decision-making process.

So yes, you're right - a new player is certainly not as easily prepared for such swings, and it becomes incredibly easy to play on tilt. This is why tilt is such a killer in the game of poker - even the best of the best struggle with it. The best advice I think anyone might offer, here, is to play with money you are completely comfortable losing. I "invested" roughly $400 (over the course of a year of not-necessarily-continuous play ), strictly in terms of buy-ins, before I started to make any money. That does not count money spent on other resources, such as books or software (although I count books as an entertainment expense, since I would have been likely to spend this money regardless of my interest in poker).

Play low-stakes, strive to make the correct decisions (regardless of how much money you might have won/lost if you made a different decision), and only play with money you're completely OK with writing off. It will take lots of patience (it's incredibly difficult to fold 500 hands in a row, even if it *is* the correct decision) and some dedication and effort in improving your game - so don't worry about when you may expect to see some long-term results. Just focus on improving your game.

(For reference, in the hopes it'll help you build some confidence, I'm posting a link to my post in the BR Management forums on my 'story' re: poker: .)

Not quite -- "likely" is a key word there, and converging towards the expected percentages doesn't exactly mean things are evening out (as in my example).

I really appreciate all the great replies from you guys. The underlying reason we all play hold'em, I think, is that we like the game and the challenge, and for you experienced guys that are making money consistantly, there has to be a lot of satisfaction, to have gotten to that level. Us new guys like to think that we will to be able to conquer the game and make some money right off, and for most of us, that's not going to happen.

It's good to read all your responses, because it reinforces what I'am finding out for myself, plus a lot of other good information, and that there is quite a steep learning curve for most of us just jumping in to limit or NL hold'em, and it's going to take quite a few thousand hands to learn to play reasonably well, if at all. Especially enjoyed musicmans post as he has just begun to start playing profitably, and I realize that I will have to go thru the same stuff to get to the same point, but try to avoid as many mistakes as possible. I know it will not be a cake walk, but hopefully in six months or maybe more, I can look back at where I was, and get a little satisfaction.

Again, you guys are all great, and I am taking all the wisdom you have volunteered and using it. But if you do not start somewhere you will not know where you are weak, and real money play does that in a hurry.