|
|
 Originally Posted by tyrn
Originally Posted by Outlaw
27, the default one. Its based off of a winrate of $2/100 hands. I'd guess that this is a player with a winrate of about 4BB/100 or so.
This is your problem, what kind of player is going to have a $2/100 win rate and $27/100 variance? you wont even be breaking even on rake if your variance is this large with such a low win rate.
$2/100 win rate is 10ptBB/100 at 10NL and $27/100 std dev is 135ptBB/100. So for every 100 hands, the player with these stats is between 280 and -260 ptBB 95% of the time, or between $56 and -$52 at 10nl in only 100 hands.
Try a more reasonable $2/100 win rate with $6/100 variance
I think you are off on your math here. A $2/100 winrate with a SD of $6/100 would be like winning at 100NL for 20BB/100 or something like that. Keep dreaming.
The whole point of the post was to show how bad variance can be over a small sample like 100k hands.. but how it becomes less of a factor the more hands you do play.
Any people with a ton of hands feel free to plug their $/100 hands winrate and SD ($/100 hands) into the simulator and see what you come up with over 100k hands. Post them here if you like. The url for the simulator is here: http://pokervariancesimulator.fr/
(I believe the default figures on the simulator were like running 1.5-2.5BB/100... which is pretty awesome over a lifetime for a good winning player... feel free to show otherwise, math people)
|
Reply With Quote