Re: What would be the best limit to start at?
 

Ah, yes, I am talking about 1% of the total number of trials. The difference is of course most notable for very small values of EV, although clearly it drastically affects the number of needed trials.

Honestly, I think 1% is a pretty freakin tight boundary and most people would feel that probability holds even if they deviate more than a percent or two from expected value.

Edit: at least I'm not crazy. I spent a couple hours this afternoon idly pondering (while doing other stuff) how we got such different numbers. I arrived at the same number by 3 different methods (observation, the formula I listed here, and another method)

Re: What would be the best limit to start at?
 

ummm...uh...hmmmm...

Yeah, what they said!



My issue with all of this in play is simply: people have made dogma of that which is still hypothetical. My issue with it in forums is: posters will insist a player behavior should change based solely on the "evidence" from an unproven hypothesis.

Again I say - anyone who wants to play this way should. And in threads say, "I'd do it this way for this reason." But it might be time for everyone to stop telling those who choose wider criteria for making poker decisions that their play is bad. At least, until some data supports that conclusion.