I'm really bad

    • Oscarsito07
      Oscarsito07
      Bronze
      Joined: 16.02.2010 Posts: 13
      4BI up heater 1k hands..
      7 BI downsing 1.6k hands..

      oh and NL10 stats
      11,705 hands
      7 days
      amt won $5
      0.22BB/100 :f_o:

  • 11 replies
    • Hahaownedlolz
      Hahaownedlolz
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 1,755
      Your sample size is WAY to big for it to be impossible that it was just variance.
    • jbpatzer
      jbpatzer
      Bronze
      Joined: 22.11.2009 Posts: 6,944
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Your sample size is WAY to big for it to be impossible that it was just variance.
      I've read this at least three times, and it still makes my brain hurt! Don't you mean 'possible'?
    • taavi1337
      taavi1337
      Bronze
      Joined: 29.05.2009 Posts: 2,920
      just ignore him

      2,7k hands is really nothing, even top pros often experience 20k hand long downswings and more.
    • opal99
      opal99
      Black
      Joined: 05.02.2008 Posts: 8,270
      100k breakeven stretches can easily happen to anyone, although not on NL10 because of quite soft games. Still, 2.7k hands is such small samplesize that you can be up or down 15 BIs and should not make any conclusion about it.

      I agree with taavi1337, but believe that 20k hands downswing on NL10 is questionable. Being b/e in 20k hands is OK (that is downswing also actually), but losing over 20k hands on this limit means one has some significant leaks in his game (unless he's playing A LOT of tables, but even then...).
    • Hahaownedlolz
      Hahaownedlolz
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 1,755
      Originally posted by jbpatzer
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Your sample size is WAY to big for it to be impossible that it was just variance.
      I've read this at least three times, and it still makes my brain hurt! Don't you mean 'possible'?
      It's called sarcasm.
    • LudiCoka
      LudiCoka
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.06.2009 Posts: 266
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Originally posted by jbpatzer
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Your sample size is WAY to big for it to be impossible that it was just variance.
      I've read this at least three times, and it still makes my brain hurt! Don't you mean 'possible'?
      It's called sarcasm.
      It would be sarcasm if it said "possible". Right now it's just pointless.
    • Targetme
      Targetme
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.05.2009 Posts: 1,888
      not great anyway
    • Hahaownedlolz
      Hahaownedlolz
      Bronze
      Joined: 24.04.2009 Posts: 1,755
      Originally posted by LudiCoka
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Originally posted by jbpatzer
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Your sample size is WAY to big for it to be impossible that it was just variance.
      I've read this at least three times, and it still makes my brain hurt! Don't you mean 'possible'?
      It's called sarcasm.
      It would be sarcasm if it said "possible". Right now it's just pointless.
      No read it again. I'm saying he has played way to many hands that it's not possible that it was just variance.... fail more..
    • LudiCoka
      LudiCoka
      Bronze
      Joined: 01.06.2009 Posts: 266
      Perhaps in your native tongue meaning of such grammatic construction is what you want to say, but it is wrong in english.

      I do not wish to offend you or anything, I'm just saying you put it wrong.

      Original, non sarcastic sentence would say: "It is possible that this is just variance because you haven't played a great number of hands."
      So that can be your sarcastic sentence.

      Or this one: "It is impossible that this is just variance because you have played too many hands."

      Or it can be: "You have played way to many hands for it to be possible that this is just variance."

      Or: "You have played way to many hands so it is impossible that this is variance."

      And many more...
    • jbpatzer
      jbpatzer
      Bronze
      Joined: 22.11.2009 Posts: 6,944
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Originally posted by LudiCoka
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Originally posted by jbpatzer
      Originally posted by Hahaownedlolz
      Your sample size is WAY to big for it to be impossible that it was just variance.
      I've read this at least three times, and it still makes my brain hurt! Don't you mean 'possible'?
      It's called sarcasm.
      It would be sarcasm if it said "possible". Right now it's just pointless.
      No read it again. I'm saying he has played way to many hands that it's not possible that it was just variance.... fail more..
      AAAAAAARGH! :s_ugly:
    • VilaRestal
      VilaRestal
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.12.2008 Posts: 22
      LudiCoka is absolutely right. The sentance is totally wrong.

      "he has played way to[o] many hands [so] that it's not possible that it was just variance."
      (sarcastic)

      is opposite to:

      "[his] sample size is WAY to[o] big for it to be impossible that it was just variance."
      (not sarcastic - just wrong)

      "[so] that it is" effectively means the opposite to "for it to be"

      I think it's wise to think before making sarcastic comments about other people Hahaownedlolz. (And then confounding it by 'mocking' those who point out your error: the "fail more" remark.)