|
|
#11
03-17-2007, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Sustainable winrates at NL?
I was also gonna ask this question. I am currently playing 0.05/0.10 NL Full Ring. My number was like 17/7.6/1.3. The first 2k hands I was running like 17 PTBB/100. But was down to 12 PTBB/100 for the next 250 hands or so. I guess this is my first actual experience/appreciation of poker variance.
|
|
#12
03-17-2007, 08:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sustainable winrates at NL?
[ QUOTE ]
I was also gonna ask this question. I am currently playing 0.05/0.10 NL Full Ring. My number was like 17/7.6/1.3. The first 2k hands I was running like 17 PTBB/100. But was down to 12 PTBB/100 for the next 250 hands or so. I guess this is my first actual experience/appreciation of poker variance. [/ QUOTE ] You'll get tired of hearing this, but 2300 hands is nothing. Although you are very possibly a winning player, this small sample size can not accurately determine your winrate. And analyzing a sample of 250 hands is nothing. ALthough you may be playing one table and take a week to play those hands, in the long run, 250 hands is a mere hiccup.
|
|
#13
03-17-2007, 10:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sustainable winrates at NL?
Most players need 200K+ hands to be reasonably sure that their true win rate is within 1 PTBB of their sample win rate (the one shown in PT). The actual number depends on the estimate of the standard deviation of your win rate (or an estimate of it). Even this is slightly suspect as your true win rate might change over the course of 200k+ hands (you may improve). Lucky
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
