[Gonso]

Just to be fair, to make sure we all understand everything you've said (there is some confusion)... here's a quick review of what you're claiming -and my own personal reaction to them, speaking only for myself- please correct where applicable:

1) Overall, you've played 3 million hands.

Three million hands is difficult, but not at all impossible. If you are 4-tabling at 60 hands/hr each table, for 60 hours per week, every week for four years you should get to 3 million hands. So, ok.

2) You've tried out a half dozen systems during that time.

Fine.

3) You now have a system that is yielding you a sustainable 31BB/100.

While this is very possible in the short term, this is pretty far out of the realm of reasonable even at the low limits. That doesn't make it absolutely impossible, of course - but to me this is like saying a given NFL QB can sustain a career average (over, say, a decade) of maybe 6 TD passes per game. Possible, sure, but extraordinarily unlikely.

4) You only have 13.5k hands to base this assumption on.

Your sample size is obviously far too small to establish anything remotely close to your long-term winrate. Since this data isn’t enough, on what did you base your assumption that the 30BB/100 rate was sustainable?

5) You forsee a 16/BB winrate at 50k hands.

Errr.... what? You "forsee" 16BB/100 at 50k hands? Huh? You were just claiming 30BB/100 to be sustainable - so why the drop to 16BB in your estimate? If you can't sustain 30BB then how is 30BB/100 sustainable?!? Also, while 50k hands is an improvement, the sample size could use a little more work.

6) You ain't spilling the beans on this system.

This makes your post useless in addition to suspicious. Why post? Did you expect people were all going to sit around and say, wow, you're amazing? We wish we all could be like you? Seriously.

7) This applies to low limit NLHE.

This is where you're at after 3 million hands played at all different limits? Back to low limit NLHE? Do you see why a reasonable person would find this astoundingly retarded?

8) You are an expert at this game.

See answer to #7 - and #9 as well.

9) You understand variance.

I suspect that you don't. A quick browse through your other posts reveals that your command of some basic (and immediately related) mathematical concepts found in poker come up a little short. For example, you opened a thread because you had not been dealt a pair of aces in X hands on a given poker site. You were not able to determine, on your own, the probability of that event occuring.

. . . .

You are getting the feedback you are getting because of the considerations above.