Another magic number?

Data can tell you all kinds of stories. The trouble is, sometimes the stories it tells you are at best warped versions of the truth which have been shaped by what you want to believe. Here's a case in point. Since I made a profit of over $100,000 last night, I became curious to know if $100,000 were some sort of magic number for me. Accordingly, I examined my data, and it appeared there was some magic to that number. To wit, in 1,688 sessions where I've failed to make at least $100,000 in profit, I've had an aggregate loss of $13,277,587. In 134 sessions where I've made at least $100,000 in profit, I've had an aggregate gain of $25,556,979. Seems pretty cut and dried, no?

Actually, the answer is no. My sit and go numbers are skewing the data. There's a lot more volatility when you play sit and gos. Looking at my non sit and go aggregates, I've made money regardless of whether or not I made at least $100,000 in profit. I guess the answer might be that $100,000 is a magic number for sit and gos :-)

style flavor buy_in entry players hands entries paid place winnings

MTT   8-Game   4500   500       6    40      96   18    50        0
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    99       6    2     1   171600
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    60       6    2     2    92400
SNG   NLHE    44000  6000       6    67       6    2     3        0

delta: $109,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $4,342,200
balance: $12,368,134