[ QUOTE ]
GoT did some calculations and concluded that it's possible for a "true" 1.8/100 winner to win like 3+bb/100 or .5ish bb/100. Combine this with the fact that players are bound to change their play from the beginning of a meaningful stretch of hand to the end, and obsessing over your bb/100 rate is little more than an act in futility.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. This way oversimplifies things. Just because it's possible for a 1.8 player to run at 3.0 or 0.5 doesn't mean it's likely. As the number of hands increases the level of confidence in the BB/100 number undoubtedly increases, but that does NOT mean that the number is meaningless after 25k or 50k or 100k.

In other words, to paraphrase Peter_Rus' idea, is it possible that someone running at 2BB/100 after 50,000 hands is really a losing player? Yes, possible. Is it likely? No. Stated another way, just because something isn't "statistically significant" doesn't mean it's meaningless. It only means that it doesn't rise to some aribtrary (usually 95% or so) level of confidence. I'm not dismissing someone's BB/100 rate just because it's only at the 85% confidence level.

I don't care about the debate as it pertains to this particular post, but the the posts that suggest that any statistic that doesn't come from a database of a gazillion hands is useless are at least partly (and importantly) wrong and the whole approach is arrogant and counterproductive.