[_D&L_]

If the standard deviation after 100 hands is 15BB, why can't we say that a person who is either +- 30BB from zero, is either playing with a winning or losing strategy with more than 95% certainty (after all thats two standard deviations). I don't follow your math, why does adding more hands create your gigantic standard deviation of +- 150 (300 / 2 )

Also, I don't know what your confidence interval proves. Its setup for a meaningless category of people - people subjectively believed to be "solid winners." If i make more than 500+ i prove i'm not a solid winner, but an exceptional winner. If i make less, i may prove i'm not a solid winner, but it doesn't show i'm not a winner.

These categories don't seem very helpful to me. I think people want to know whether their strategy is winning or losing, not if it is a statistically significant deviation from a subjectively determined group of players knighted "solid winners" by a survey taker.




[/ QUOTE ]