How many hands or dollars to claim profitability at a limit?

[12AX7]

Hi Everyone,
I was reading the other day that one poker author believes you should win at least 100 BB's at a limit to decide you are beating the game.

Any idea if that's factual or supported by something objective?

Seems a bit small to me. Bu then I've not figured out the statisical side of earn rates at all.

So fill me in.

[AaronBrown]

I doubt there's a lot of science behind the figure. It's useful because total win is easier to keep track of than average win rate and standard deviation. Also, it focuses your analysis on recent performance rather than requiring thousands of hours of play during which your abilities might vary.

If you figure a standard deviation of 20BB per hour then if you win 100BB in less than 25 hours of play, you're more than one standard deviation above the mean of a breakeven player. While that's not hard proof that you're better than average, it's solid statistical evidence.

If it took you more than 25 hours of play to win your 100BB, the evidence is less compelling statistically, but stonger in the sense that it is measured over a longer period of time. The "at least" figures in here. If you played for 100 hours to get up 100BB, you should have a pretty good idea of whether you've beaten the game or just had a hot streak. If you had some wild swings in there, you would be wise to reserve judgment on your level of skill. But if you were pretty consistent, you might trust the result.

So 100BB of winnings doesn't prove you've beaten a game, but less than 100BB is never enough to make a judgment, even if you win it all at the start with no losing hands. At 100BB you can start to ask the question, but you're not guaranteed to have a clear answer.

[Fabian]

I can't help with the actual math here, but if we're talking about limit holdem, losing players win 100 big bets or more extremely often. Like all the time. Having won 100 big bets at some point is in no way a guarantee for anything.