Stud Winrate, possible move up?

[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.