now that we've had some time, whats a solid WR for the Party 30/60?

[catlover]

[ QUOTE ]
There has to be some math to settle this. I don't know much about stats, but I have to think that given a standard deviation, you can tell exactly how many hands you need to get your win rate to +/- .1 BB/100. Anyone know I'm wrong or want to do the math if I'm right? If I'm right, this should have been settled a long time ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is. For instance, given a typical SD of 15 big bets per hundred hands, the number of hands needed is:

100 * 15^2 * (1/0.1)^2,

which comes out to 2.25 million hands.



Face it, you will never know your true win rate.

[ QUOTE ]
GoT did some calculations and concluded that it's possible for a "true" 1.8/100 winner to win like 3+bb/100 or .5ish bb/100. Combine this with the fact that players are bound to change their play from the beginning of a meaningful stretch of hand to the end, and obsessing over your bb/100 rate is little more than an act in futility.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. This way oversimplifies things. Just because it's possible for a 1.8 player to run at 3.0 or 0.5 doesn't mean it's likely. As the number of hands increases the level of confidence in the BB/100 number undoubtedly increases, but that does NOT mean that the number is meaningless after 25k or 50k or 100k.

In other words, to paraphrase Peter_Rus' idea, is it possible that someone running at 2BB/100 after 50,000 hands is really a losing player? Yes, possible. Is it likely? No. Stated another way, just because something isn't "statistically significant" doesn't mean it's meaningless. It only means that it doesn't rise to some aribtrary (usually 95% or so) level of confidence. I'm not dismissing someone's BB/100 rate just because it's only at the 85% confidence level.

I don't care about the debate as it pertains to this particular post, but the the posts that suggest that any statistic that doesn't come from a database of a gazillion hands is useless are at least partly (and importantly) wrong and the whole approach is arrogant and counterproductive.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
GoT did some calculations and concluded that it's possible for a "true" 1.8/100 winner to win like 3+bb/100 or .5ish bb/100. Combine this with the fact that players are bound to change their play from the beginning of a meaningful stretch of hand to the end, and obsessing over your bb/100 rate is little more than an act in futility.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. This way oversimplifies things. Just because it's possible for a 1.8 player to run at 3.0 or 0.5 doesn't mean it's likely. As the number of hands increases the level of confidence in the BB/100 number undoubtedly increases, but that does NOT mean that the number is meaningless after 25k or 50k or 100k.

In other words, to paraphrase Peter_Rus' idea, is it possible that someone running at 2BB/100 after 50,000 hands is really a losing player? Yes, possible. Is it likely? No. Stated another way, just because something isn't "statistically significant" doesn't mean it's meaningless. It only means that it doesn't rise to some aribtrary (usually 95% or so) level of confidence. I'm not dismissing someone's BB/100 rate just because it's only at the 85% confidence level.

I don't care about the debate as it pertains to this particular post, but the the posts that suggest that any statistic that doesn't come from a database of a gazillion hands is useless are at least partly (and importantly) wrong and the whole approach is arrogant and counterproductive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game, set and match!

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a bunch of arrogant pricks now inhabit the mid-high forum.

you can all go blow me.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you aren't referring to my post. I was being totally serious and not trying to be condescending. All I'm saying is that there are far more accurate ways to size up how you're doing than checking your bb/100 after 25k hands. Relax, Scott.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

Even over a 100k hand sample, this is just a "who's running the best?" contest. Seriously - don't get yourself wrapped up in this sort of thing. It won't give you an indication of how you size up against anybody really.

Yea, this is just about as meaningless as most of the rest, just not as condescending as most.

I asked a simple question about win rate. I'm quite sure I did NOT ask a question about your or anyone elses opinions of what is a meaningful sample size.

Calling my post an attempt to 'measure up' dimishishes my question to dick length, which it is not.

I distinctly remember a post shortly after the 30 games opened where people were doubting if 1.5 was sustainable in this game. So I thought I'd ask the question and see where we were at as a group, and offer mine up to start.

This is not about 'who's better'. This is about trying to gauge a reasonable yardstick that we ALL can measure our game against, not against each other.

but so many egotistic pedantic pricks now populate this forum its truely becoming a joke.

-Scott

P.S.

for your new arrogant pricks, you can dig into the archives and find a response from about 2 years ago, where Mason himself said under the correct circumstances you can get a realistic idea of win rate from far less than 25K hands.

So to the whole lot of you. GTFU

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
overreacting a bit here, some people just found "witty" ways of saying we still don't know, and 100k is a very arbitrary figure. The consensus is your a winner and are doing well, and no one really has a great idea what is doable, but the best can probably make 2-2.5 bb/100. How is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask a serious question, and have to get annoyed to get a serious response eh? Was this so hard to type?

and 100k is NOT arbitrary.

-Scott

[ALL1N]

Mate, I'm interested to know what people are winning at too. I think it was that you posted your WR after 25k hands that set ppl off.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What a bunch of arrogant pricks now inhabit the mid-high forum.

you can all go blow me.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you aren't referring to my post. I was being totally serious and not trying to be condescending. All I'm saying is that there are far more accurate ways to size up how you're doing than checking your bb/100 after 25k hands. Relax, Scott.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

Even over a 100k hand sample, this is just a "who's running the best?" contest. Seriously - don't get yourself wrapped up in this sort of thing. It won't give you an indication of how you size up against anybody really.

Yea, this is just about as meaningless as most of the rest, just not as condescending as most.

I asked a simple question about win rate. I'm quite sure I did NOT ask a question about your or anyone elses opinions of what is a meaningful sample size.

Calling my post an attempt to 'measure up' dimishishes my question to dick length, which it is not.

I distinctly remember a post shortly after the 30 games opened where people were doubting if 1.5 was sustainable in this game. So I thought I'd ask the question and see where we were at as a group, and offer mine up to start.

This is not about 'who's better'. This is about trying to gauge a reasonable yardstick that we ALL can measure our game against, not against each other.

but so many egotistic pedantic pricks now populate this forum its truely becoming a joke.

-Scott

P.S.

for your new arrogant pricks, you can dig into the archives and find a response from about 2 years ago, where Mason himself said under the correct circumstances you can get a realistic idea of win rate from far less than 25K hands.

So to the whole lot of you. GTFU

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly, wtf.

no need for the hostility-ility builidy-iliding

i thought i gave you a great range of "my friends" by which i mean the best of those i know who play poker. thats the best i can do. and if you look at what DPR posted you'll know pretty much where your NOT at

Barron

[Paluka]

I think a solid win rate is one that involves not playing so much poker so that it makes you miserable, yet still having enough money to buy nice [censored].

[ggbman]

Ok last post in this pissing match. Calling everyone a bunch of assholes and telling them to blow you isnt a serious question. My response was a little sarcastic, but you get annoyed way too easily. I have no desire to continue bitching with you or hold a grude, i am just saying that EVERYONE here is basically agreeing that no one has enough hands to say for sure. We are all just giving the best ballpark we can.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
Far closer? 200 is closer to 25 than to 500. 300 is 75 closer to 500 than it is to 25. What qualifies as "Far closer"? 400k? 450k? If it's the 100k-200k that most people say, it's closer to 25k than 500k. Maybe FAR closer.

[/ QUOTE ]


You divide your SD/100 by the square root of the number of 100 hand blocks you've played to find your confidence interval.

Example:

1 SD (68%) confidence interval = +/- SD/100 * 1/SQRT(hands/100)

Hands - 1/SQRT(hands/100)
25000 - 0.0632
100000 - 0.0316
200000 - 0.0224
500000 - 0.0141

In this sense, 200,000 hands is much closer to 500,000 than it is to 25,000.