| |
BGonline.org Forums
Which is more aggravating & why?
Posted By: Stanley E. Richards In Response To: Which is more aggravating & why? (bob koca)
Date: Monday, 16 June 2008, at 9:55 p.m.
I agree that the statistics would be more precise if definite numbers were available to compare 1 1/2 hours of backgammon vs. 1 1/2 hours of poker (approximately 100 hands). Unfortunately, this data does not exist. As you know there is copious amount of references to poker win rates. There simply is not much backgammon win rate information.
Nevertheless, my backgammon data is not merely conjecture. It is based on sixteen months of online backgammon experience. I carefully documented my win rate based on Snowie Account manager. At the end of the month, I deleted my account to prepare for new, monthly totals. Calculations were made to estimate the rake paid. These monthly sessions constitute about 35 hours of backgammon play per month. Four hundred to Six hundred games were played each month. My average Snowie error rate was 6.6. Thus, there is a fair amount of data to substantiate my backgammon analysis.
Yet before Bob’s post, I did recognize that I was comparing 35 hour backgammon sessions to 1 ½ hour poker sessions. Please advise me, if anybody is aware of written statistical data of the win rate and standard deviations of 35 hour poker sessions. I would be happy to modify my library analysis. Nevertheless, the differences in variation per win rate of poker and backgammon is enormous. Even when better 35 hour poker session data becomes available, poker will never reach the session win rate success and low bankroll requirements of backgammon.
I was hoping to receive an insightful response to my post. Thanks Bob.
Stanley
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.