Quote:
Originally Posted by flettl2
10% ROI after 12,000 sng's is what I'm hoping after the first year. For sng's I think after 5000 games you are +/- 5% of your true ROI 95% of the time.
Any claim like this must make a daunting array of assumptions. The central limit theorem will get you some of the way, perhaps, but there are many uncontrolled (and not easily accounted for) variables. For example, what if your "true ROI" (does such a thing actually even exist?) fluctuates, as it certainly must, based on the time of day, the players you're playing against, your mood, your recent results, etc. If you accept this, then there are either multiple "true ROIs" or a range of "true ROIs" that may be right in different circumstances. Without making some assumptions about these different "true ROIs" you cannot make any of the claims you're attempting to make (I don't think), etc. And how finely do you start parsing the "circumstances" to categorize or distinguish them? At the limit, every SNG is a different circumstance and there is no way to predict your "true ROI."
These are difficult questions that lead to difficult to form legal opinions. I may be overthinking this question relative to what a judge or the CRA would do, but I can't help but think an expert could be called to make all these points in a forceful way at trial (recall Epel, where the "expert" wasn't even all that forceful or logically consistent, and yet highly influential; cf Leblanc, where an expert somehow claimed and the court accepted that they had no system and were risk maximizers... you see the point).