Calling all Sample Size Nazi's

[Killer Man's Son]

"Sample Size Nazi's". Haha, I love that term.

Anyway, I need to know what the forum's consensus is on the number of hands at any given limit (NL is not a concern here) for one to have a decent idea of how they stand.

I have lurked for a while and have a pretty good idea, but I have also seen a wide range of numbers. So, if you have been playing regularly for a while (at least a year or two), how many hands should I play at any given limit to determine where I stand?

Thanks in advance.

[balkii]

Listen, heres the thing: If you can't spot the sucker ...

NO amount of hands will ever give you an "accurate" idea of your winrate. Games get tougher/softer, you get better/worse. Knowing "where you stand" is positively useless.

If you look around the table and see players making mistakes, then you'll beat the game. If you keep studying and working, you'll beat the game for more.

[BottlesOf]

It depends what you mean by "where you stand"

[Killer Man's Son]

[ QUOTE ]
It depends what you mean by "where you stand"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I want to know whether or not I should consider myself a winning player or not (I do BTW). Most importantly, I want to know what type of numbers I should see before moving up to the next level.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

10K will give you a good idea of how many hands you play and how aggressively you play them.

[ds914]

But if he's looking strictly at his win/loss rate (which is what I think he's probably doing), 10K hands is not nearly enough to determine whether or not he's a winning player.

[Killer Man's Son]

[ QUOTE ]
But if he's looking strictly at his win/loss rate (which is what I think he's probably doing), 10K hands is not nearly enough to determine whether or not he's a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct ds914. I'm looking for the minimum number of hands I should play at a given limit to determine if I have beaten that limit and it is time to move up. 10K sounds a little small to me as well. Would 20K give a good indication?

Thanks.

[GuyOnTilt]

50k is a good starting point. 100k is better. 250k is decent.

GoT

[Killer Man's Son]

[ QUOTE ]
50k is a good starting point. 100k is better. 250k is decent.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks GoT. Exactly what I was looking for.

[helpmeout]

It depends on a lot of factors.

If you are playing low limits and the money is insignificant then just move up when you have 300BB for the next limit. I think I played 2k hands at 2/4.

As you move up and the money starts to mean something then you will want to play more hands.

At 5/10 6max i played about 10k hands but was running at 5b/100 i made the jump got raped and moved back down.

I think I played 30k hands before I made the jump again my winrate around 2.5 or so.

I played about 30k hands before I moved up from 10/20 6max.

But of course it depends on how well you are going, if you are running hot or you just feel confident that you have a significant edge over other players.

Are you a pro? If so you will need to play a lot more hands at particular limits because you will need a much larger buffer.

If you want to know if you are a winning player then it depends on your winrate and your sample size.

A general guide might be (this is just my opinion)

25k hands at 5bb/100 = likely a winner
50k at 2bb/100 = likely a winner
100k at 1BB/100 = likely a winner

Of course these figures assume you were a winning player at lower limits.

[pzhon]

After n hands, a 95% confidence interval for your win rate in BB/100 is roughly results +- 300/squareroot(n). So, if you win at a rate of 3 BB/100 for 10k hands, your 95% confidence interval would be 0-6 BB/100. To shrink the interval by a factor of 2, you need to increase the number of hands by a factor of 4.

[aargh57]

[ QUOTE ]
After n hands, a 95% confidence interval for your win rate in BB/100 is roughly results +- 300/squareroot(n). So, if you win at a rate of 3 BB/100 for 10k hands, your 95% confidence interval would be 0-6 BB/100. To shrink the interval by a factor of 2, you need to increase the number of hands by a factor of 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then say, for example, I have a 2.0 BB/100 after 40,000 hands my 95% confidence interval would be:

2.0 +/- 300/(squareroot of 40000) =
2.0 +/- 300/200 =
2.0 +/- 1.5 =
between 0.5 and 3.5

In other words I am 95% sure that my "true win rate" would lie between 0.5 and 3.5.

I just wanted to see if I'm calculating this right.

BTW, I am assuming that this formula is in a book somewhere. If so, which one?

[Dov]

I hate to say this, but I think you're asking the wrong questions.

Assuming you have the roll for the game you want to play in, just rail it for a little bit. If you can't tell whether or not you can beat it, then you can't.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then don't move up yet.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Listen, heres the thing: If you can't spot the sucker ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
results +- 300/squareroot(n)

[/ QUOTE ]

So then say, for example, I have a 2.0 BB/100 after 40,000 hands my 95% confidence interval would be:

2.0 +/- 300/(squareroot of 40000) =
between 0.5 and 3.5

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, 0.5-3.5 BB/100.

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, I am assuming that this formula is in a book somewhere. If so, which one?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't get it from a book. It's an application of basic statistics and the assumption that your standard deviation for 100 hands is about 15 BB. There are analogous formulas for NLHE and for tournaments with other values replacing the 300.

[Killer Man's Son]

Excellent responses. helpmeout & pzhon...thanks for the insite. Very informative.

Dov - I think you probably nailed the question I was asking 'underneath it all'. I have watched higher limit games and know I can beat them. Its just a matter of grabbing my balls and going for it. But, I also understand variance is a bitch. I've been MTing under my normal limit this weekend and things aren't going well. No excuses, just a bad run. Had I decided to move up, I might perceive this as being outplayed which I know is not the case under my normal limit. So, I was looking for a general number of hands I should play before I cry uncle and move back down.

I'm going to keep plugging away under my normal limit for now to see how things go. I'm not a MT junkie like many posters here but I'm working up to it (currently at 3 tables). I can handle playing this w/o a problem so we'll see what the future holds.

Thanks again.