|
|
#21
08-31-2005, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents. [/ QUOTE ] I think you are the one who‘s delusional. 
|
|
#24
08-31-2005, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
We're talking low-limit here which I take to be 5-10 or under. I seldom have a losing session and is seems to me that I can say the same about most of my respected opponents. Low-limit stud is where I return to gather the funds that I can lose elsewhere. I'm not trying to brag or aggrandize my poker abilities. I freely admit to struggling at higher limit stud or at other limit games. However, low-limit stud is, or should be, a slam dunk. [/ QUOTE ] Screenname? Winrate? Samplesize?
|
|
#27
08-31-2005, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
here is a post about finding the confidence interval around your winrate.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...amp;PHPSESSID= Notice how the confidence interval stays very very large despite the number of hands you play. And the frequency with which you have winning sessions can depend a whole lot on any number of things. But you are an idiot if you think losing x BB (when x <= 150) over y hands (when y <= 10k) means ANYTHING about how well you play. There is just not enough information in that statement to determine anything.
|
|
#28
08-31-2005, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
You first. Sorry. I'm not giving that information out. I don't really care if you don't believe me. In fact, I'd prefer if you didn't. [/ QUOTE ] PsychoSmurf - This is already public knowledge 4.8 BB / 100 in the 2/4 game sample size of ~9k hands (which is tiny as hell) Now you
|
|
#29
08-31-2005, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I am eternally running bad at stud (no content).
[ QUOTE ]
Never run bad at NL holdem? Must be great, if I never ran bad at NL Holdem I think I'd be buying out P diddy... but then again why would I, I could just play NL holdem. On the other hand, 50 BB is nothing, today, at a stud table it took me 84 hands to finally win one. I still think stud is better, more profitable and more fun. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I should be more specific. I run bad at NL hold 'em but it doesn't matter because I am a very, very good NL hold 'em player and my winrate is ridiculous. Whereas at stud I am likely only a marginally winning player even at low stakes. Of course, stud hi/lo is a different animal.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
