Quote Originally Posted by dev
Checking the math for you:
What I'm looking for is a distribution with a lower bound(LB) of 0 at mean-40%, so
z=1.28
WR = 2 (2ptbb/100)
stdev = 26.3679 (standard deviation for bb/100 hands)

LB = WR - z * stdev / sqrt(N)
N will be the number of 100-hand increments I'll have to play per week.

Correct to here.

0 = 2 - 1.28 * 26.3679 / sqrt(N)
N = 284.7808

Yeah, correct all the way.

at 500 hands/hour I'd have to play 56.9562 hours per week. For me that would be burnout city.

I posted this for 2 reasons, 1 is to get feedback and make sure I did the math right. 2 is to contribute something, as messy as it is, it might give some perspective to players who think about going pro.
Someone said "it's not normal," and that's true, but it's "normal enough" with these sample sizes. The means samples are normally distributed regardless of the shape or characteristics of the underlying distribution. Your assumption here is that every sample of size 100 comes from the same distribution, which is correct enough - it's all samples from you playing poker at the same sites at the same levels.

As to whether or not its doable, I don't know. But the math is correct, and the assumptions are valid. Could the win rate be higher? That's the thing that will "improve" these statistics the most. Your standard deviation is already pretty low (mine is 40+).