Do I suck?

[AndrewtheBold]

[ QUOTE ]
Also true is that hot streaks over 40k-50k hands usually indicate just running well and not superior play (or anything close).

[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that I could play in a casino 40 hours a week for almost a year (assuming 30 hands/hour) and that my results would be close to meaningless? That is, I could win something on the order of 1 BB/hour over that period of time but actually be a losing player?
If so, then at what point are a player's actual results somewhat indicative of their theoretical results?

[MicroBob]

all i'm saying is that it's very possible for a 1.5BB/100 type player to run at 3BB/100 for 40k hands or so.
it's also possible for the same 1.5BB/100 player to run about break-even over this same stretch.

your win-rate after 50k hands has SOME meaning...but there is also quite a lot of room for variation in there.


Here's an idea....combine your previous hotter streak WITH the losing streak you've had. Your 60k sample-size has slightly more meaning than just the first 50k hands.


As far as the live pro is concerned I think you are answering your own question if you just want to take a look at your limited sample.
Lets assume you are a winning player...in that case you've already seen for yourself how relatively easy it is to have a 200BB downswing and you already know long it would take to get through such a downswing in live play.
You should also be able to see that it wouldn't be that impossible to put a couple of these downswings back to back.

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that my game is off (at least not enough to give my incompetent opponents an edge) and I do believe that I have been dealt very bad cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I see a problem or two with your game.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also true is that hot streaks over 40k-50k hands usually indicate just running well and not superior play (or anything close).

[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that I could play in a casino 40 hours a week for almost a year (assuming 30 hands/hour) and that my results would be close to meaningless? That is, I could win something on the order of 1 BB/hour over that period of time but actually be a losing player?
If so, then at what point are a player's actual results somewhat indicative of their theoretical results?

[/ QUOTE ]


the goal is to maximize your expectation. sometimes your results don't meet up to your mathematical expectation, and sometimes they far surpass it. it's gambling. if you want to have any type of success you have to understand that your results and your play are not as strongly correlated as you'd expect

[Nomad84]

Some quick math assuming a 15BB/100 standard deviation.

Standard error of the mean=SD/sqrt(n)

Over 50000, we have 500 blocks of 100 hands, so n=500.

Standard error of the mean=15/sqrt(500)=0.6708

You can think of this as the standard deviation of your winrate. So if you want a 95% confidence interval, that's about two standard deviations each way. That means that after 50000 hands, you can be 95% sure that your true winrate is equal to your observed winrate +/- 1.34 BB/100. That's a pretty wide range. On top of that, 1 person out of 20 is outside that range after 50000 hands! 1/40 is more than 1.34BB/100 above their true winrate and 1/40 is more than 1.34BB/100 below their true winrate. In addition, to cut the uncertainty in half, you would have to play 4 times as many hands. Hopefully that helps clarify how big the variance really is in this game, and also why people typically suggest such large numbers of hands before you really start to put any faith in winrate numbers.

[AndrewtheBold]

Thanks for your replies, everyone. It has been insightful.