1,000 hands is nothing.

I've been using the Poker Tracker software for about a week. I logged in at 4 different limits (actually two limits were the same - one was a reglar table, the other was configured as 6 max), and logged a bit over 1,000 hands in each limit. The results of BB/100 hands are as follows:

A. -7.09
B. +5.85
C. +11.67
D. +5.85

Net +3.56

I think this shows how variable results can be. 1,000 hands clearly has alot of variability around it. My thinking is that even 4,000 hands has a ton of variability in it. My educated guess would be that the net BB/hr will be roughly +0.00 to +7.00 over the next 4,000 hands. Overall, I think it would take 50,000 or more hands to really have a good handle on the numbers.

Now these numbers are in shorthanded games. I estimate the average number of players at the table was around 4. So the big difference in results may be due to the high volatility of shorthanded games. The 4,000 hands weren't played in succession from table A to B to C to D. Instead, I intermingled games. When playing multiple games, I would have one table at one limit, and another table at another limit. But if you only see the results for table A...you would have to think that I played poorly...who loses at a rate of -7 BB/100 hands over 1,000 hands? Seems like a decent number of hands. Yet if you only saw any of the other tables, it may seem like a very good player. It all goes to show how long it takes for the results to actually mean something.

If I keep playing online, I'll check back in at 10,000 or greater.

P.S. I purposely didn't mention the exact limits for personal reasons.