[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh. I've been doing way too much math on these boards today, so I'm not gonna attempt to prove/disprove what you just said. Maybe you're right; I'm just under the assumption that sample sizes are almost always too small [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I do know that after ~150 games my ROI was like 15%; so that suggests that there's sti
ll significant variance at this scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this suggest significant variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

My ROI for first 150 was ~15%. My ROI then was ~45% over the next 150. That's variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you got better [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. That's actual very possible... if you win these 60% of the time, your ROI is ~15%. If you win 70%, of the time, it's ~35%. Not sure if it's realistic to say that I jumped from ~60% to ~75% chance of winning.