![]() |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
i'm close to 7 PTBB/100 over 300K hands at 2/4, and have had multiple 30K breakeven stretches.
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Another ?:
How are you defining 30k breakeven. For instance you drop 15 buyins over 8k hands, it then takes you 22k hands to win those 15 buyin backs, that is a 30k breakeven, correct? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
Another ?: How are you defining 30k breakeven. For instance you drop 15 buyins over 8k hands, it then takes you 22k hands to win those 15 buyin backs, that is a 30k breakeven, correct? [/ QUOTE ] yup. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
1/2 280K hands @ 6 PTBB/100
2/4 90K hands @ 4,8 PTBB/100 2 times 30K+ breakeven stretches (40K longest) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] can everyone stop posting sample sizes of under 150K hands? k thx [/ QUOTE ] sry we don't all run at 2ptbb/100 but play a gagillion hands per day [/ QUOTE ] then the accuracy of your results are almost worthless [/ QUOTE ] o rly? [/ QUOTE ] Yup, winrate takes a really long time to converge properly. You can have a high theoretical winrate and still break even for close to 30k hands, which is why you need really large samples. [/ QUOTE ] plz come up with an exact number where they converge with reasoning, otherwise i will just continue to think you have no statistical background at all. why is 150k the magic number? how do you take in account the level that a player is playing at? why can't players be playing like [censored] for 30k hands? yadadada [/ QUOTE ] I'm beating 3/6 NL for 15.36 BB/100 for ~21K hands I'm beating 2/4 NL for 0.52 BB/100 for ~30K hands this month while 8-12 tabling. come on now, its pretty hard to determine your winrate. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] plz come up with an exact number where they converge with reasoning, otherwise i will just continue to think you have no statistical background at all. why is 150k the magic number? how do you take in account the level that a player is playing at? why can't players be playing like [censored] for 30k hands? yadadada [/ QUOTE ] 150K is not a "magic number". I just threw out an arbitrarily large number that is not quite the long run but not quite meaningless. [ QUOTE ] To calculate this you'd need to know a typical standard deviation for aggressive, short handed games. You can get this in PokerTracker by clicking "more detail" on the session notes tab. The value will be in BB/100. Once you have this, you can calculate the 95% confidence interval around your winrate like this: true winrate = reported winrate ± 1.96 * standard_deviation/sqrt(hands/100) [/ QUOTE ] and 1 in 20 times, a persons true winrate will be outside the range you get from this calculation [/ QUOTE ] side note....that equation is most likely worthless as it doesn't look like poker winrates are gaussian when scatter plotted. YOu need a different distribution assumption IMO. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
6.1 at 1/2 40k hands
3.0 at 2/4 80k hands 6.4 at 3/6 20k hands 4.8 at 5/10 70k hands |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
dont know if this is appropriate, but here is the graph of my last 244k hands since 1st october in BB. as you can see, there is 1 breakeven spell from 52K to 79K (so 27K breakeven) and from 106K to 122K (16K breakeven)
other than i dont think there is any more than 10K hand breakeven. hence probably why i rant so much in the main thread whenever i have a bad couple of days (okay, hour even). the line i think shows my winrate being higher in the first half (as i was playing 1-2nl and bit of 2-4nl whereas now mostly 3-6nl with bit of 2-4nl and 5-10nl). ![]() |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This thread depresses me.
I'm 3ptbb/100 over 70k mix of 1/2 and 2/4 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
can everyone stop posting? k thx [/ QUOTE ] fyp |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|