Re: buying in short
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you, thats a stupid arguement. And i'll retract my figure of 500k hands needed.... using my standard deviation, just shy of 250k hand samples would narrow your win rate to a 3BB/100 range (95% confidence), and you could statistically claim at that point, if your observed win rate was exactly the same for both sets of data, that the difference (if any) in buying in short vs big was not more than 3BB/100. With 20k hands all you can say is it's not costing you 10.75BB/100 (again using my SD, and assuming observed win rate for both is exactly the same).
|