how many hands do you need to look back on in order to take the variance into account???

waller02

I believe that if you look back on at least 3 hands, that's plenty of data at hand to determine an accurate assessment when taking variance into account when posting in area 51.

waller02

i'm finding more and more that the likes of ak lose to a8 etc......far too often (supposed to be a 70% fav right?) below are my 2 exit hands from tonight as an example

i'm seriously thinking about making a record of the ak v a6 kind of hands that are all in pre (on whatever table i'm on and not just the hands i'm involved in) and tallying up the wins, losses and split pots because i honestly think it happens too often. how many hands do i need before a serious argument can be made??? this may appear sad but it's doin my nut in!!! lol

kidpoker69	Small blind		400.00	400.00	5285.00
yeahboy	Big blind		800.00	1200.00	17440.00
	Your hole cards	A K
penguin7	Fold
waller02	All-in		6942.50	8142.50	0.00
3barrels	Fold
kidpoker69	Fold
yeahboy	Call		6142.50	14285.00	11297.50
yeahboy	Show	10 A
waller02	Show	A K
Flop
		J 6 Q
Turn
		5
River
		K
yeahboy	Win	Straight to the Ace	14285.00

waller02	Big blind		200.00	200.00	1762.50
	Your hole cards	Q A
wolvesf474	Fold
ste88o19	Call		200.00	400.00	13923.61
daggers747	All-in		2885.00	3285.00	0.00
TAFYOB	Fold
waller02	All-in		1762.50	5047.50	0.00
ste88o19	Fold
daggers747	Unmatched bet		922.50	4125.00	922.50
waller02	Show	Q A
daggers747	Show	A 6
Flop
		6 Q K
Turn
		7
River
		6
daggers747	Win	Three 6s	4125.00

debdobs_67

Oh waller that really su cks , ya even had the hearts covered in the 1st hand and then a poxy 2 outer in the 2nd

waller02

In Response to Re: how many hands do you need to look back on in order to take the varience into account???:

I believe that if you look back on at least 3 hands, that's plenty of data at hand to determine an accurate assessment when taking variance into account when posting in area 51.
Posted by loonytoons

lol, seriously though i'm considering doing it.........to put my paranoid mind at rest if nothing else!!!!

unknown_username

I was playing on another site and in one tourney I saw A4 beat bigger Aces 3 times and KK once but I was not tempted to call 2 all-ins when I had A4. Just for the record I would have won they had AK and 33 and a 4 came down on the flop! But it means nothing except that averages mean nothing in one tourney but just because it happens 4 or 5 times in a row it just sometimes it feels like its happening all the time but then again you dont get to see all the hands that are folded so you can never have all the fact!
 Ps sorry for not answering your question but there can never be an exact figure unless you include eternity!
 PPs if you are getting it in good in a all-in situation you are only going to go out on a bad beat so the figures are always going to be high especially if you dont remember all the times you have doubled up with the best hand!

loonytoons

In Response to Re: how many hands do you need to look back on in order to take the varience into account???:

In Response to Re: how many hands do you need to look back on in order to take the varience into account??? : lol, seriously though i'm considering doing it.........to put my paranoid mind at rest if nothing else!!!!
Posted by waller02

Look, i get done on the river an absurd amount of times on here, and i do to others an absurd amount of times as well, and i see others on my tables doing the same an absurd amount of times in relation to average percentages. Maybe i'm a muppet, or the others are muppets, or we are all muppets but it does happen and you are not imagining these occurances, but no matter what conclusion you come to after studying the data, all you will get from the unusual suspects is - Not a large enough sample size, unless you post a zillion hands lol

waller02

yeah good points.......i can't be bothered to record 1000's of hands just to find out that acually it is just variance!!!! like you say it's swings and roundabouts....run better soon i guess!! lol

DOHHHHHHH

Loads.

You prob wont be able to do it alone, you could get a totally trustworthy player/s to do it with you.....

But inevitably you will miss some, not notice some, forget to record some etc.

Over a small/modest sample, if the worst hand wins between 20-40% of the time then it's probably best to conclude all is well.

If you do a bigger one, you'd expect best hand to win between 25-35%.

If you do a proper, huge, conclusive sample best hand will clearly win 29-31% of the time.

You'd have to play ALOT of poker to get that tho!

Crunchybob

Just think of all the times you've hit 1 or 2 outers in the past.

i cracked aces with 9s yesterday then got my aces cracked by 7s.

DOHHHHHHH

In Response to Re: how many hands do you need to look back on in order to take the variance into account???:

Just think of all the times you've hit 1 or 2 outers in the past. i cracked aces with 9s yesterday then got my aces cracked by 7s.
Posted by Crunchybob

Case Closed

loonytoons

In Response to Re: how many hands do you need to look back on in order to take the variance into account???:

Just think of all the times you've hit 1 or 2 outers in the past. i cracked aces with 9s yesterday then got my aces cracked by 7s.
Posted by Crunchybob

Well thats proof as dohhhhhh says in above post. You would expect to get aces cracked about 20% of the time i think, and you say you were involved in 2 hands where aces were cracked, so where are the other 10 times that your aces beat the lower pair that you played yesterday? But not to worry, it all goes round in ''cycles'' on line, so aces cracked yesterday loads of times means aces winning today loads of times??

waller02

yeah case closed agree!

i suppose it is quite feasible to lose with a 70%+ hand 3 or 4 times in a row..........just very annoying, hence my little rant (which is now over!)

as for recording the the hands.......quite frankly i can't be bothered with all the hassle just to be proven the stats are actually pretty accurate!

unknown_username

In Response to Re: how many hands do you need to look back on in order to take the varience into account???:

. . .  - Not a large enough sample size, unless you post a zillion hands lol
Posted by loonytoons

I wouldn't think zillions. I reckon you can make some pretty persuasive arguments in Area 51 with, ooh . . . about four.

DAVEYZZ

In Response to Re: how many hands do you need to look back on in order to take the varience into account???:

I believe that if you look back on at least 3 hands, that's plenty of data at hand to determine an accurate assessment when taking variance into account when posting in area 51.
Posted by loonytoons

dont insult our intelligence!

you do the rng a disservice,you know full well its at least......5 hands!

baggs

Or a few weeks....?