When do you know if you are a long-term winning player?

[giddyup]

so i have been playing 3/6 full ring, but mostly 5/10 6 max at Party. my BB/100 is about 2 over the course of 50k+ hands. i was just wondering if anyone has an idea about when variance has been exhausted (or mostly exhausted) and at what point a player can be called a long-term winning player. Is there a standard range of hands for this type of thing?

[PokerBob]

Without knowing anything else, I think once you get to 200K hands and are still above 2, you can be pretty confident. I hate Jason Sasser.

[Digs]

I dunno, I've been constructing a confidance interval using our sample mean and st. deviation.

Over 15k hands I'm 98.4% confidant my true mean lies over 0.0 BB/100 and 81.3% confidant my true mean is 2.0 BB/100 or more (I've been running goot).

So seems like much less than 200k hands is needed to make conjectures about this, am I missing something?

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, I've been constructing a confidance interval using our sample mean and st. deviation.

Over 15k hands I'm 98.4% confidant my true mean lies over 0.0 BB/100 and 81.3% confidant my true mean is 2.0 BB/100 or more (I've been running goot).

So seems like much less than 200k hands is needed to make conjectures about this, am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. You may need 200k hands to know your winrate with 0.5BB or so, but you typically need much fewer hands to know whether you're a winning player or not.

Of course there's a big difference between being a trivial winner (0.1BB/100) and a non-trivial winner (I'd put it at 1BB/100).

[MAxx]

I think you can also just know.

[sublime]

when i say so

[Kirg]

Homer's How many hands do I need thread will answer all your questions

[7ontheline]

When they pry your mouse out of your cold, dead hand, if the numebr in Pokertracker is green you are a winning player. Or do all this pu$$y math crap, you know, whatever.