I said after 5,000 games your results will begin to closely depict your winrate, not that it would 100% be correct. Variance can easily cause a winning player to have a breakeven stretch.
On top of that, you seem to be suggesting that the variance in my ROI is somehow attributed to an inherent "luck" factor of poker while ignoring the fact that the sample size ranges from micro stakes up to high stakes poker. My winrate is obviously going to vary between stakes because poker is a game of skill and the higher the limit, the more skilled the player pool.
FYI, it's also quite annoying to throw wikipedia pages explaining common psychological biases at me when you've already stated that you are basing most of your conclusions on "assumptions" since you aren't well acquainted with the subject matter. I'm well aware of everything you're warning me about but you also seem biased against poker. I've shown you a sample of over 50,000 tournaments. That's over 1.5 MILLION hands of poker. It blows my mind that you seem to be keen on ignoring empirical evidence and mathematical analysis here, but if you want to ignore that, so be it.
You are absolutely correct that poker results have high variance but you only need a sample of around 5000 matches or so before your results begin to closely depict your true winrate. I only showed an image of my $15 heads-up hyper-turbos on PokerStars. Below is a link to my graph for all heads-up hyper-turbos I've played over my life, 50k+. This graph shows my play from the $1.50 games all the way up to the $200 games. If you didn't trust in a 18k sample, maybe this 50k sample will help sway your opinion.
Note that I'm also only a mediocre regular in these games. There are MANY people who have far better results than I do. They average a 3-5% ROI which is much higher than mine.
Also note that the reason my graph dipped after the first 10k games or so was because I went from playing the $15s-$30s to playing the $100s/$200s for awhile. Due to the increased skill level I dropped back down. Here's another image showing my stats for each buy-in level.
Poker is 100% a game of skill but it really depends on how you approach it. Professional players or serious amateurs such as myself make money at the game simply because people approach it as if it's bingo.
If every recreational player was putting in time studying poker theory and reviewing their play, it would become much, much harder to make money playing. As such, I really don't mind if people want to continue thinking it's a luck based thing. It just means more profit for me since that perspective, oddly enough, doesn't stop people from dropping $$$ in the game, it merely stops them from thinking they can gain an edge by putting in time and effort. Recreational players wouldn't play if there wasn't a certain amount of luck...
EDIT:
Also, it's important to note that every poker player has to pay for their education. Look at my last graph. I was an unprofitable player for the first 10-20 thousand games or so. That was when I was just playing micro/low stakes on PokerStars recreationally. Once I gained some knowledge, and decided to take it much more seriously, my profits skyrocketed.
It's far better to learn how to play poker at micro/low stakes online, where you will pay less for your poker education, than it is to start with mid/high stakes online or in your local casino. Either way, you'll be a losing player to start. Choose the more inexpensive option.
I don't even know how people can even argue it isn't a game of skill anymore. Profitable poker players are just little, mini-casinos. That's it. It's not that complex of an idea.
I play heads-up hyper-turbos, as well as other games, on PokerStars. I've been studying poker, reviewing my play, and grinding for years. I'm a mediocre reg and I can grind out consistent profits. Here's my graph of 18,106 $15 heads-up hyper-turbos on PokerStars.
Grew up in Saskatchewan as well (Prince Albert). So, so glad I live in Vancouver now. The people were great but the weather in PA was absolutely soul crushing throughout the winter. Vancouver rarely drops into the minus and we get maybe 1-2 snowfalls a year (which usually melt as it falls). Feel like it's the tropics over here whenever I get back from visiting family/friends in PA.
Lol, I never said I started out in April, I said I started my bankroll. I've been playing for 5+ years. I just restarted my bankroll in April because I had spent it on bills in February.
Those results are based on the following:
2,615 $3.50 Heads-Up Hyper-Turbos
1,605 $7 Heads-Up Hyper-Turbos
1,792 $15 Heads-Up Hyper-Turbos
16,715 $30 Heads-Up Hyper-Turbos
211 $60 Heads-Up Hyper-Turbos
I've also played a handful of MTT tournaments which are a miniscule part of sample size but which result for about $7,500 of that $12,500. I played the $880 Fraser Downs Fall Poker Challenge in Vancouver and cashed 3rd for $7,384. I also won $5,000 that weekend in one session playing pot limit omaha cash. So that is, indeed, small sample size, but the rest is not. Read on.
This isn't run good. Once you're up to a sample of around 5000 heads up hyper turbo games, your results begin to accurately depict your actual skill level. I've played 22,938 heads-up hyper-turbo matches since April with a 1.08% ROI, 51.80% winrate, and $6,063.56 net profit before rakeback.
And yes, I practiced perfect bankroll management. If you're not living off your bankroll, using a 35/50 buy-in rule (move up when you have 50 buy-ins, move down when you're at 35 buy-ins) is a good, aggressive system to use. If you are, 100 or 200 buy-ins minimum is best, depending on how comfortable you are with variance. I started with $200 which was ~57 buy-ins for the $3.50s on PokerStars. I'm now playing the $30s and $60s with a bankroll over $6000.
And yes, people can replicate these results. Easily. My results are, honestly, more on the weaker side among regulars. As for a beginning player, they could easily replicate these results if they actually studied. It's really not that hard to crush the $3.50s-$15s on PokerStars. You just have to think. Most people are there to gamble.
The games are excellent these days. Of course the overall player pool took a hit on Black Friday, but there is still tons of action. Hyper-Turbos have only gotten more popular, especially because the best players are booking some of the highest profits among all high stakes players each year.
As for a 60% winrate and 14% ROI at super-turbos, THAT is too small of a sample size. It's highly like you're a winning player with a great ROI, but you were on an upswing. You're ROI was likely in the 2.5%-5% range. The highest ROI I've ever seen was around 6% over 20k games (also someone hit 7.5% over 3k games but thats too small a sample). And yes, the average player is slightly better, and the regs have definitely improved as well, but fish are fish. The games up to $15s are very, very soft. The $30s are as well but you'll start to run into a lot more regs at that stake.
If you aren't enjoying it anymore, you probably shouldn't be playing any longer.
I didn't advocate playing only for the sake of making money. I suggested it because of how complex a game it is. How much time it takes to master. And because the potential rewards once you do are quite significant, which is a nice added bonus.
And I'm not sure when you stopped playing (pre black friday?) but I don't think there's a single point at which I've ever stopped improving. I know many heads-up professionals as well and not a single one of them ever stops learning and improving their game. Stagnation in poker is death. As such, I don't know why you feel like it was a lot of fun at the start but lost that later on. There is always another level deeper you can go.
The point of any game is to win. The metric that determines the winner of a game is different in every case. In poker, it's how much money you're making. But that doesn't have anything to do with the game itself. It merely depicts how well you're playing.
Learning to maximize expectation with true mathematical finesse while factoring in accurate opponent profiling and gameflow is one of the most challenging things I've ever had to do gamewise. I've played chess since I was 5, Counter-Strike very seriously for five years, WoW for the first 3 years before it went to shit, and have been getting into Go. And in none of those games have I achieved the level of mental satisfaction as I have from poker.
Edit: Was your stars alias RRiccio as well? Were you a cash player? You only have ~750 tournaments recorded on sharkscope.
Keep forgetting about Black Friday. You can buy a PokerStars account from people in Bolivia/Germany/etc. and use a VPN to connect. I know a few people doing this. There's a new online site in Nevada right now, only for Nevada residents, but I hear it's a pretty big failure. New Jersey is very close to releasing it's own online poker site as well.
On top of that I think most US players play on iPoker skins (black chip poker, cake poker, etc.) which allow US players.
But yeah, all of them (apart from the Nevada/New Jersey sites) are technically illegal down there. Most professionals who didn't quit poker altogether and didn't transition to live either moved to Canada or some third world country with no taxes and cheap living to grind.
You should really give No Limit Hold'em or Pot Limit Omaha a try. Poker is a game of astounding complexity once you start taking it seriously and it's quite fun. Combine that with the ability to take a small bankroll, $100 or whatever you're comfortable using as seed money, and turn it into a roll sufficient for high stakes poker (with enough dedication and time) and it truly does become quite an amazing game to play.
I personally play heads-up poker. Unlike 9-handed poker, heads-up poker is constant action. It's more dependent on opponent profiling and maximizing expectation on the fly, using experience and statistics. A game of infinite variety.
Since April I've taken $200 and, playing online and live poker, have profited in the following ways:
+$6458 - online poker heads up matches
+$2900 - rakeback/bonuses from pokerstars
+$12500 - live tournaments and pot limit omaha cash
And that's merely playing recreationally, completely separate from my full time job. You can play a complex, fun game and make money doing it. Who wouldn't enjoy that?
On top of that, you seem to be suggesting that the variance in my ROI is somehow attributed to an inherent "luck" factor of poker while ignoring the fact that the sample size ranges from micro stakes up to high stakes poker. My winrate is obviously going to vary between stakes because poker is a game of skill and the higher the limit, the more skilled the player pool.
FYI, it's also quite annoying to throw wikipedia pages explaining common psychological biases at me when you've already stated that you are basing most of your conclusions on "assumptions" since you aren't well acquainted with the subject matter. I'm well aware of everything you're warning me about but you also seem biased against poker. I've shown you a sample of over 50,000 tournaments. That's over 1.5 MILLION hands of poker. It blows my mind that you seem to be keen on ignoring empirical evidence and mathematical analysis here, but if you want to ignore that, so be it.
But, yes, indeed, good luck to you as well.