Quote:
BB/hour is correct based on small sample size of 5 years, twice a week sessions by villain. Utilized high level Statistical Analysis he learned in top 3 Data Science Masters program via IBM statistics software & transposing data in excel.
running the numbers doesn't require sophisticated data analysis. we just need to know the number of hands and a rough idea of the standard deviation which doesn't differ much from player to player.
2 sessions a week per year is somewhere in the ballpark of 12k hands a year.
and after 5 years it wouldn't be unheard of that he'd be running 1BB/hour (4BB/100) over expectation.
... and of course that's assuming he's keeping perfect logs and not missing any weeks.
what seems more likely is (even if he's being completely sincere) that he missed a week here or there, was forced to leave early sometimes when the games broke, and didn't always have a pen/paper with him to take note of his exact result.
but the skepticism isn't because i don't think he's "that good" it's because the gap between a reasonably competent grinder and the best of the best is not as big as you might think, and for ceiling to be that high is less hinged on him being amazing than it is how bad the field is.
if you were to look at datamines when they were publicly available, the biggest winners in small to midstakes games were around 3BB/100 where very questionably competent regs were pulling in around 1BB/100 (both before rakeback or prop pay implying their effective was was closer to 2 and 4BB/100 respectively).
in this hand, for instance, almost no competent player would do anything differently than what either of you did. this is true for 9/10 hands realistically and where two competent players deviate it's a very minor consideration. it matters a ton when you're playing in big games where the best make 2BB/hour where a decent but not great reg would be break even - not so much when the winrate ceiling is very high.
when games as big as 20/40 are filled with that many weak players it's not very likely that there won't be an influx of local grinders to dilute the field. especially over a 5 year time frame.
it's not impossible that he is that big of a winner but it would require games at that level to be way softer than what I've ever seen, and for a very long period of time. the fact that he played 2 sessions a week suggests he was primarily playing on weekends which would make it somewhat more believable but i'd still bet the farm on him underperforming that if we had a way to test it.
it also seems somewhat questionable that someone who fits that criteria would stick with 20/40 for so long. he'd have been up nearly a quarter million after the first few years. it would be beyond irrational to stick at that level for that long while crushing so hard.
Last edited by Abbaddabba; 08-25-2020 at 05:03 PM.