[tinhat]

Thank you.

Now that I see my post I don't think I worded it correctly. The amount we've "won" is the total for hands not folded. This is why I thought it could simply be a function of the distribution of premiums we (or anybody could have) received. IOW, assuming similar distributions of premiums, maybe it's not at all surprising the two grosses are virtually identical.

He happens to have (IMM) an impressive win rate; and has been steady throughout 30k hands (I'm not making a big deal of wr because I understand the tiny samples; but for comparison's sake I'm intrigued). I'm a net loser and our wr rates differ by about 5bb/100. So we diverge after subtracting the blind costs from the gross and comparing the two net amounts; his is +, mine is -.

With the proviso that these are virtually meaningless samples, I was still led to believe that given we've won the same gross amount, my problem isn't that I can't win per se, but that I can't hang on to it like he has apparently done. This is the deduction I was wondering if it could be correct?

Mike