[senjitsu]

Well, I suppose it depends on how big the fluctuation is. From the posters initial post, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that he had been doing very well over ten months, and very poorly over the subsequent 2 months (which was the period for the sample of cash games). By definition, the final two month period is anomalous.

If you are a net positive player over 5 other groups of 6000 hands, then I would think you would want to look at this group and see where you're going wrong. Obviously, if you think its better math, you are welcome to write all your losses as bad beats sans analysis. Indeed, if you're playing at any of the sites I frequent, I encourage it!

jc


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, while 6000 hands isnt a huge sample, it is big enough so that mere statistical anomaly isn't the most likely explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. It's so small that a bad run over this many hands isn't even really a "statistical anomaly", it's just a normal fluctuation.

The only way to tell if you're on a bad run or if you're just not that good is to play a lot more hands. Whether or not your loses are due to bad luck or bad play, you do need to be analyzing your play and trying to improve. You should always be doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]