[somapopper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

20k hands is peanuts.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am assuming this is true for mid stakes, and high stakes, where the majority of the feild is average and above average skill. The run of cards is a big influence on your win rate.

But at 1/2 there is so much dead money that breaking even over a stint of 20k hands says alot more about skill then breaking even at 5/10. I don't think I've had runs were I break even, or lose for longer then 5k hands. I agree with everyone about the level of variance, and the importance of sample size, but these aspects become less and less of an issue as you drop in stakes. Mainly because the amount of dead money increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I've run at 8BB/100 over 15k hands at 5/10 only to follow it with -3BB/100 over the next 10k. Should I conclude I'm some kind of 5BB/100 prodigy, or a massive 5/10 loser? You just haven't encountered the really interesting parts of variance yet, but don't conclude they don't exist

Although your point is taken about 1/2, loose play with big pots generally increases variance, so I think this offsets your point.

I imagine you probably are a winning player, and if you can honestly evaluate your play and say you are making very few mistakes, then your true win rate is probably close to or higher than your current win rate. Just, becoming fixated on your actual winrate with a small number of hands isn't very useful.

edit: 150k isn't small, sorry I missed that the first time around. Still, never havinng any downswings is a little odd. Also, why do you want to go from 1/2 to 5/10? 3/6 seems like a pretty important step you're skipping.