Quote:
Originally Posted by Halo_P1
Very possible. But some might say you also underestimate rake (or rather rake back). Beating a stake isn't just about having a win rate, its about having the motivation to grind out the volume. My theory is that Charlie overestimates the winrates possible at micros and will test resolve to go through the swings. Lower winrate = bigger swings. Bigger swings= testing Charlie's ego more. The more its tested, the more he is likely to discontinue it.
I would shudder that people think that I believe 25nlz is full of crushers. I do not. Anyone with a decent work ethic/ reasonable studying ability can beat it. But I do know micro stakes is going to test your sanity (see Doug Polks for further details). If your style is based on arbitrary reads, without baseline solid fundamentals, you are going to tilt more. This is why I'm offering the bet. I don't think his style of play can stand the test of volume. After all, the entire point of this BRC was to show his methods were better than Doug Polks.
Its very possible I can be wrong. But Im offering the sweat here.
Winrate has no impact on swings whatsoever
Standard Deviation does
Higher winrate decreases the probability of losing of any give sample but not how much you're deviating from the long term EV aka swings.
I'm gonna state two things
1) He clearly would complete the challenge with a high winrate, swings or not
2) GTO or Exploitive side aside, he's just a donk who hasn't done the math in terms of the volume and hours required. With winrate always cut by attentive streaming by what I estimate 33%+ by taking away attention.
3) Or he has, knew very well he was never gonna complete it and how much time it'd take
And just rode Doug Polk's publicity for exposure