|
|
|
|
#1
10-31-2005, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
Really, I would think 80,000 hands would be enough of a sample size, that's got to be at least 800 hours of play or equivalent.
I know the fluctuations can be huge, even when your set is snapped off at the river (capped on flop and turn) by a two-outer, but to wait for 700,000 hands would suggest a standard deviation of 50-100 big bets per 100 hands. Could it be that most limit poker is simply a game of chance? 
|
|
#2
10-31-2005, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I was wrong, you were right, but that\'s why i joined 2+2, 80K hands...
"Could it be that most limit poker is simply a game of chance?"
IIRC, mike l. once claimed that. My feeling is that it's a game of chance in that, over the next few thousand hands, the best player in the world might be a net loser. But there's no way the worst player in the world will be a net winner. I can tell you whether the core group of players in my limit game will be winners or losers in the next year with a very high degree of accuracy.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
