what does "not a large enough sample size" mean?

[___]

Study the image below. I normally play 2 tables, sometimes 1 or 3, and I give consideration to seat selection. I am an amateur, so I have the luxury of being choosy about what games I play.

Is this win rate sustainable in the long term?

Am I a winning player in the long term? Why or why not?

What form is my inevitable downswing going totake?

[Tomfoolery]

Many people can play 7,000 hands in a week. Normally people need to see at least a block of ~50,000+ hands before making a jugdement of whether you are a winning player, or just running hot.

[thirddan]

i haven't played in that game in a while, but i imagine around 3.5/4 to be sustainable if you only play a couple tables...i think 7 is too high...

[sightless]

Ply 7k more hands and see where you at o_o

[Mossberg]

The stats look like those of a winning player and your winrate looks pretty. But, what people usually mean when they say "not a big enough sample size" is that YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE VARIANCE YOU WILL ENCOUNTER IN THIS GAME.

SH Limit is full of more ups and downs than any normal person could handle. I got lucky and ran at 4.5bb/100 for my 1st 45k hands. But for the past 40k hands, I've been slightly better than breakeven and am now at 2.25bb/100 over 85k hands at 3/6 6m.
In the past 40k i can very confidently say I've played infinitely better than my 1st 45k, and despite my improved play I've endured a 250bb downswing, a 200bb, 2 150's and more 100's than you could imagine (since the beginning of May).

This game sucks and you can't let it trick you into thinking your a solid winner after 10,20,30 or even 40 thousand hands.

[Dan BRIGHT]

nh doogkie

[Gary Stevenson]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people can play 7,000 hands in a day

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP