Stud Winrate, possible move up?

[lstream]

[ QUOTE ]
There are posters like Istream, beta, etc. that could probably tell you better

[/ QUOTE ]
There are stretches of 7500 hands where you can easily hit the 4BB/100 number. However, this is way too small a number to be meaningful. You need to play long enough where you run bad for a month or two, cause it happens to everyone.

I have logged about 750 hours at 5/10 over the past several months. I track my results by the hour, not per 100. However, I think you can do a rough translation since I can typically play 60 hands per hour or so, based upon some statistics I used to keep.

I am currently tracking 1.45 BB/hour which converts up to about 2.41 BB/100 - pure table performance not counting bonuses or rakeback that I no longer get. I have to double check that 60 hands per hour when I get home. This is after about 750 hours or 45,000 hands I guess. This is also after a brutal stretch from late August to mid November where I made nothing (I am guessing this was 10,000 - 12,000 hands) .

I don't consider myself a top player compared to some of the other posters here, so maybe some of them are at 3 BB/100 or so. However, I would think you need to be one seriously good player to sustain that number in the long run. At 10/20 and up, I am not sure how I would do, but the performance would certainly come down.

[lstream]

Update to my last post. I have played less hands than I thought - it looks like approximately 39,000 5/10 hands. I play about 54 hands per hour, not 60. Looking at my actual spreadsheet shows an implied BB/100 of 2.67. I also think this number is likely to head down, because I went on huge heater when I first started at 5/10. 39,000 is not likely a big enough sample.

Some more comments on Win Rate and other stats.

I agree with most here that a sample of 7500 will mot necessarily encompass all the swings that a player's bankroll will undergo so there is some error. But I would guess that when you do have such a sample the accuracy is somewhere around +/-10% at least 90% of the time or better.

But here's another point, if an adequate sample is only around 100,000 hands, Win rate becomes meaningless except maybe for those who play 1000 hands per day.
Otherwise, (and I would suspect this is the case for most players who are learning) Win Rate measured over long periods becomes meaningless because it fails to account for many other elements such as change in play, stakes, etc.

And the question of sample size applies to all systematic analysis of players. In another note, wish lists of player stats for software to display were requested. I think people requested fold, raise rates, etc. How many hands do you need to sample before you get a predictable 3rd st call rate? 4th st? 5th?

[highlife]

[ QUOTE ]
But here's another point, if an adequate sample is only around 100,000 hands, Win rate becomes meaningless except maybe for those who play 1000 hands per day.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a ridiculous statement. you should say something like "winrate becomes somewhat less meaningful" and maybe we could agree.

you are basically saying it doesn't matter at all what your prior success in the game is because current conditions are not the same as those shown in the past results.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But here's another point, if an adequate sample is only around 100,000 hands, Win rate becomes meaningless except maybe for those who play 1000 hands per day.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a ridiculous statement. you should say something like "winrate becomes somewhat less meaningful" and maybe we could agree.

you are basically saying it doesn't matter at all what your prior success in the game is because current conditions are not the same as those shown in the past results.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, how's about: it becomes way less less meaningful. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

My point was that most players, after 100,000 hands, will be playing a different game. 100,000 hands could take several years.

[highlife]

ok, so in your opinion, is there any time winrate is meaningful?

[ QUOTE ]
ok, so in your opinion, is there any time winrate is meaningful?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me give an example of what I mean.

Imagine a player has been playing 4 years and plays at about 500 hands / weeks, for a total of ~100,000 hands. Very likely (and only if he follows this forum and reads 7cs4ap [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) his game will be improving all along. If the player looks at his win rate over the period of 4 years, it will provide an average of how he did over these 100,000 hands but it will likely not give an accurate reading of his current winrate. In this case, he should probably look at a smaller and more recent sample (6 months?). The error on the number obtained will be greater but should be more meaningful.

On the other hand, I agree (and know from personal experience) that a sample of 10,000 hands might very well be misleading. It might not capture some up or down swings.