lolsample. Thats funny.
But yah I totally get it. It was a sample of 3k cbets tho not hands which yes, is still really small, but I hadn't had a period of losing cbets longer than 250 cbets over the past 40k hands and then suddenly I had a cbet downswing that lasted 3.5k cbets, so considering the limited data, it seemed like a statistically significant change that correlated exactly with when I changed my raise sizes. Thats why I started thinking about what the hell changed and the raise size seems like the most(and pretty much only) significant change in how I was playing. Its a correlation thing because I know I can never really prove causation. And fish are all different so even if one thinks in a predictably stupid way, its unlikely they all are. I'll come back when I have a bigger sample. Its more than likely that I'm over thinking it(better than not thinking about it) and maybe its even worth thinking about.
And the escalating raise sizing from by position in May was just another experiment based on the idea of making their odds
worse to call me when they'll have position.
Btw, what kind of swings do you guys have in your cbet results? Obviously at higher stakes you'll have bigger swings but my cbet graph seems amazingly low variance except for my baby raise experiment which is still pretty consistent just consistently negative.
Plus I'm hoping that after 100k hands I'll be at another stake where I'll have a whole new batch of experiments.