[Nate tha' Great]

This thread is kind of disappointing, but just a couple of comments that I don't think have been made yet. (My apologies if they have been, I've just skimmed through some of the other replies).

1. Because of the extremely high levels of aggression involved, the online games that many of us play in today are associated with much higher variance than the typical poker game even a few years ago.

That having been said,

2. There's really a Bayes' Theorem thing going on here.

Suppose that out of 100 "true" 2.0 BB/100 winners, at any given time 2 of them will experience a 300 BB downswing...

That out of 100 1.0 BB/100 winners, at any given time 4 of them will experience a 300 BB downswing...

That out of 100 0.0 BB/100 winners, at any given time 8 of them will experience a 300 BB downswing...

That out of 100 -1.0 BB/100 winners (losers), at any given time 16 of them will experience a 300 BB downswing...

That out of 100 -2.0 BB/100 winners (losers), at any given time 32 of them will experience a 300 BB downswing...

And so forth. These numbers are just arbitrary guesses but that's not the point.

The true 2.0 BB/100 winners *will* experience a 300 BB downswing from time to time. However, of the people experiencing a 300 BB downswing that purport to be 2.0 BB/100 winners, the vast majority of them will in fact be playing permanently or temporarily at a level well below 2.0 BB/100.