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 
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
12
Posts
8
Users
0
Reactions
2,245
Views
11 replies
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'?
just ignore him
2,7k hands is really nothing, even top pros often experience 20k hand long downswings and more.
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...).
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.
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.
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..
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...
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! ♠_ugly:
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.)