[eisanm]

I'm in no way good at this, and it might be unnecessary to even post this since I don't add much.

But my opinion is that you cannot be that precise. Even if you could determine a good approximation for your winrate, there's nothing saying you will actually get that winrate this specific time (variance, that is).

So I think it's pretty much meaningless trying to figure such things out.

I'd say that if you have a certain win rate after a large enough number of hands to determine your win rate, you can expect to earn that in a typical game.

For example, in typical games your win rate has been 2bb/100 over the last 200k hands. Then if this game seems typical you can expect to earn that much.

If this game looks better than a typical game you expect to earn more (this seems to apply to your example). Then maybe for this specific game you'll estimate 2,5 bb/100 or maybe 4bb/100 if it's a really good game.

I don't think you can be much more precise. And even using the kind of reasoning I do above, variance still means that I still don't expect to end up with the expected amount of money, even if I knew my EXACT win rate.

So my conclusion is there's no point in thinking like that.
Maybe Sklansky has a different opinion.