[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
if your standard deviation is the same as mine, then after 12K hands at 0bb/100, statistically there is a 95% chance your winrate is somewhere between 6.92 and -6.92 BB/100. You have absolutely no idea if you're a winner in this game or not

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree.

I think it's also important to pick the nit that, if some say 8 is sustainable, then the <2.5% chance that I'm playing that well says that I'm not that good. The evidence suggests that I suck at $50.

My winrate at $25 is between -3 and 11 BB/100. I'd have to say that there is evidence that suggests that I fare better against the $25 players than against the $50 players. It is more likely that I do worse at $50 than any other combination here. Just because I could be a "real" 6BB/100 player doesn't mean that it's likely. It's actually very unlikely. There's a greater chance that I'm in the (-1,0) range than in the (-2,-1) range.

As for "gospel" ... this is still money we're talking about. There's no guarantee that I'm really only a breakeven player at $50, but there's evidence that suggests that I'm not good. It is more likely that I'll make money at $25 than at $50. Furthermore, posts everywhere on this forum (in SSNL, general, the zoo, limit micros, etc) suggest that putting in more hands at $25 will let me improve my game and help me build a bankroll to attack $50 again later.

You seem to be suggesting that, because I might actually be a winner at $50, that I should be playing there. Or that, because I might actually be doing the same at both limits, that I should be at $50. I think this is a confusion between precision and accuracy... or that you think that I'm trying to read precision where there is none. I acknowledge the imprecision of these stats, but I don't doubt their accuracy.

What I see says that the most likely explanation is that I have figured out how to beat the $25 players (but not by much), and the $50 players play slightly differently and I haven't figured out how to adjust to them.