Thanks a lot!
I would like to know which are those skills and which are most needed in one stake to another in order to know where am I lacking skill or what I need in relation with another average regs.

Yes, thanks :)
But what about the skills that differenciate good regular players from different stakes?

Hard to say, but imo there's a big differences beteween NL25 and NL50 regulars. You can find some hand analysys on this site and see the disparity in thinking process

Regular tables, but reg skill-set difference overall is my question

lol if 3bb/100 was the max one could get at microstakes poker would already be dead. People who say certain winrates can't be reached are usually mediocre regs who struggled for a long time and think that their experience serves as a rule to the environment.

There are guys making 5bb/100+ at 500z in 2016. Saying that making 10 bb/100 at 10nl is impossible is as close to a joke as it gets

I'm not saying thats your case btw before you get offended. But I have heard the same thing over and over from other people, but no one is actually ready to make something like this happen.

I didn't say 3bb/100 is the max winrate attainable, but I def don't think a 10bb/100 winrate is possible, counting the huge rake obv. In order to see the big picture we should have a have people playing the same stake for an year, and then maybe we might get an answer.
Regarding guys making 5bb/100 at 500z, well, 5bb/100 is the actual winrate, you don't know whether they are outliers. Don't get me wrong, be a huge winning reg is possible, but we should take into consideration variance.

Also I want to point out that maybe my view is biased due to my downswing and lack of poker skillz, so you know, I'm a bit pessimistic. At the same hand, you are having great poker results recently so your view could be skewed to an optimistic one

ah, regarding your second post, you have not offended me ofc, in fact, you gave me a kick in my ass to work harder. Ty for that, it's way better a kick in the ass and move forward than a pack on the back and move at all :)

The thing is: people always find excuses when someone crushes the game.

What would you say about this guy?. 300k hands at 8 ev bb on 200z/500z. 1-2 bb/100 regs will look at this and say "thats variance, isnt sustainable, running good".

People need to stop acting like pessimistic losers and do ther best to have the highest winrates possible. If someone can have 300k hands of 8 ev bb poker on 200z/500z, I have absolutely no doubt micros are "crushable" for even higher rates, because the micros environments are extremely weak and exploitable.

In order to see the big picture we should have a have people playing the same stake for an year, and then maybe we might get an answer.

Ishter has more than 1M hands of 200z at 5 ev bb. There might be guys saying its variance. "Fish on a heater"

I plan on playing 1M hands of 100z next year. I'll do my best to have the highest winrate possible. By the end of the year I will have a pretty clear understanding of what is possible or not. So far I can only look at great regs that play higher and assume that they would have much better results at weaker pools.

The thing is: people always find excuses when someone crushes the game.
I think you are right here, I think people don't play/study enough but complain a lot instead

What would you say about this guy?. 300k hands at 8 ev bb on 200z/500z. 1-2 bb/100 regs will look at this and say "thats variance, isnt sustainable, running good".
**He is def a solid winning reg, ofc. Posting the ev bb/100 isn't the big picture anyway, adjusted AI capture one aspect of variance not all.
Anyway I just plotted some possible runs.
EV (»?«) 5.00 BB/100
Standard deviation (»?«) 73.00 BB/100
Hands(»?«) 300000
Expected winnings (»?«) 15000.00 BB
Standard deviation after 300000 hands (»?«) 3998 BB
1.33 BB/100
70% confidence interval (»?«) [11002 BB, 18998 BB]
[3.67 BB/100, 6.33 BB/100]
95% confidence interval (»?«) [7003 BB, 22997 BB]
[2.33 BB/100, 7.67 BB/100]

What do you think about these possible results?
**

Ishter has more than 1M hands of 200z at 5 ev bb. There might be guys saying its variance. "Fish on a heater"
You got me on that one, obv not a fish on a heater. The sample is also more than triple than the 200/500 reg you posted

He is def a solid winning reg, ofc. Posting the ev bb/100 isn't the big picture anyway, adjusted AI capture one aspect of variance not all.

LOL you just did what you acknowledged people do. The world can't accept greatness because the world is mediocre. And AIEV is the only measure of results that considers some kind of variance. Ideal or not it is the only thing we have and that's why we use it.

What do you think about these possible results?

I don't know what is your intention with that simulation lol why are you assuming he is a 5 bb winner? What you can conclude for those results tho is that there is a 95% chance that his true winrate is higher than 5bb/100 xD

LOL you just did what you acknowledged people do. The world can't accept greatness because the world is mediocre. And AIEV is the only
measure of results that considers some kind of variance. Ideal or not
it is the only thing we have and that's why we use it.

Actually there are many more mesurable variables that would help you to see the big picture. One easy accesible thing is the bell curve on PT4, that shows set/draws hit %.
Setups also are easily countable, you just have SQL skills in order to query correctly the DB.

Here's a quick read on AI Adjusted and why it is biased
http://www.pokertracker.com/blog/2011/10/the-problem-with-all-in-ev-all-in-equity

I said measure of results. You can't measure how your results should be EV-wise by counting how many coolers you should have had in your favor. The things you are talking about can be an indicative of runbad/rungood, but they can't measure your winrate

I said measure of results. You can't measure how your results should
be EV-wise by counting how many coolers you should have had in your
favor. The things you are talking about can be an indicative of
runbad/rungood, but they can't measure your winrate

you are right, but running good or bad affects your EV and effective winnings. AI EV is model that help you over a huge sample to understand your winrate, true. But like all models they aren't perfect. Probably a better short term AI EV could be build, excluding obvious cooler from the graph

This discussion is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You prefer to discuss wether AIEV is a good measure of winrate (a topic btw that has been discussed over and over for years in the poker community) instead of looking at the guy and saying "shit, someone is making 8 bb/100 at midstakes on stars. I need to get better".

If great winrates are not achieved consistently, I'm much more inclined to think the cause is because most regs are mediocre than thinking it is actually impossible. The same thing happens in all careers across the globe. The impossibles of today are just the greatness of tomorrow

This discussion is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You
prefer to discuss wether AIEV is a good measure of winrate (a topic
btw that has been discussed over and over for years in the poker
community) instead of looking at the guy and saying "shit, someone is
making 8 bb/100 at midstakes on stars. I need to get better".

If great winrates are not achieved consistently, I'm much more
inclined to think the cause is because most regs are mediocre than
thinking it is actually impossible. The same thing happens in all
careers across the globe. The impossibles of today are just the
greatness of tomorrow

maybe you missed the part where I said ty for kicking my ass, whatever...

Anyway IIRC, you asked for some non-poker book advice, or someone else chime in and advise you to read something, dunno. Anyway, a well known read is 'Outliers' by Malcom Gladwell and 'Fooled by Randomness' by Nassim Taleb, it is related to what we are discussing here.

Cliffs: Poker is merithocratic, outliers still exists, and yes, all players should study more and complain less

Your post made me thought about another thing, can you please check how much rake are you paying in bb/100?

Right now I'm paying 8,5. Assuming any player is paying the same, does it me 8,5x6 /100 goes in rake?

You don't understand my question because my english isn't very good.
Your winnings must came from someone who actually pays the rake too. So assuming every player is paying 8bb/100 in rake, 8x6= 48bb/100 is taken from the site no? In order to win you must at least to have on player who is losing 48bb+/100, or 2 players losing that amount in combination. Or I am just missing something?