[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a bunch of arrogant pricks now inhabit the mid-high forum.

you can all go blow me.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you aren't referring to my post. I was being totally serious and not trying to be condescending. All I'm saying is that there are far more accurate ways to size up how you're doing than checking your bb/100 after 25k hands. Relax, Scott.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

Even over a 100k hand sample, this is just a "who's running the best?" contest. Seriously - don't get yourself wrapped up in this sort of thing. It won't give you an indication of how you size up against anybody really.

Yea, this is just about as meaningless as most of the rest, just not as condescending as most.

I asked a simple question about win rate. I'm quite sure I did NOT ask a question about your or anyone elses opinions of what is a meaningful sample size.

Calling my post an attempt to 'measure up' dimishishes my question to dick length, which it is not.

I distinctly remember a post shortly after the 30 games opened where people were doubting if 1.5 was sustainable in this game. So I thought I'd ask the question and see where we were at as a group, and offer mine up to start.

This is not about 'who's better'. This is about trying to gauge a reasonable yardstick that we ALL can measure our game against, not against each other.

but so many egotistic pedantic pricks now populate this forum its truely becoming a joke.

-Scott

P.S.

for your new arrogant pricks, you can dig into the archives and find a response from about 2 years ago, where Mason himself said under the correct circumstances you can get a realistic idea of win rate from far less than 25K hands.

So to the whole lot of you. GTFU