Re: buying in short
[ QUOTE ]
-20k hands is about 480k short of what you'd need to tell if there's any real difference in your winrate when buying in short.
[/ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a folklore about how many hands you need to be able to draw conclusions about your win rate. Below whatever number someone wants to give in an argument, they will say your sample size is negligible. (By contrast, thedustustr offered NO evidence for his assertion that buying in short should cut my win rate proportionately. I have offered numerical and logical arguments against it.) As a mathematician, I prefer the much more accurate idea that rather than using an arbitrary threshold (chosen beforehand, or adjusted later to try to disqualify my evidence), we can recognize that the observed win rate smoothly becomes increasingly accurate with more evidence. A very high number of hands is needed to pin down a win rate within 1 BB/100. A much lower number of hands is needed to provide substantial evidence that my win rate is not cut in half when I buy in short.
20k hands each is enough that I would notice if buying in short were to cut my win rate in half the vast majority of the time. The 95% confidence interval from the last 20k hands does not include winning only 6.5 BB/100. (33 PTBB/Sqrt(200) = 2.33 PTBB/100.) While I don't have strong evidence that I would not win 13 PTBB/100 by buying in for 100 BB, I don't believe it.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone would argue your buyin amount would make more than 3 or 4 BB/100 difference,
[/ QUOTE ]
That's precisely what people are arguing when they say you must cut your stakes in half and buy in for 100 BB instead of buying in for $50 at a NL $100 table.
I'll respond to the rest later.
|