my little experiment.

jimb0d1

Why do this? If it comes back you ARE statisically unlucky will you feel better or worse?

The_Don90

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

Why do this? If it comes back you ARE statisically unlucky will you feel better or worse?
Posted by jimb0d1

well chances are it might show im lucky or unlucky for a few weeks, But if i continue to do it over a period of time and everygame i play it should about balance out.

jimb0d1

So you are just proving that probability exists?

The_Don90

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

So you are just proving that probability exists?
Posted by jimb0d1

maybe a weird way of saying it. I guess i want to prove i dont run bad.

The_Don90

going to update this.

Flips total 17. 10 won 7 lost

Bad beats (80% or better when gone in to losing hand) 1 dished out. 2 taken.

70/30s. Went in with dominating hand total of 8, lost 6 won 2. Went in with the dominated hand 7 times, won 2 lost 5


Still small volume.

jugglegeek

This a waste of time. Best way to satisfy you curiosity is to flip a coin 500 times and measure the results. Flips are called flips because they are roughly 50:50... like a coin toss. spend an hour doing this and then spend the rest of your valuable time playing more and increasing your volume. After all you are just as likely to run bad in a poker game as you are in a coin toss game.

My advice would be to stop with all these "I just run bad at life" posts and start racking up hundreds of thousands of hands at cash games within your roll.

Run bad can range from losing coin flips, to your opponents running bad when you get aces, to running bad on hands on the bubble of tournements, to running bad at heads up at the end of tournements. If you spend your time thinking about how you run bad you will lose your mind. Stop thinking about it and start thinking about ways to play more volume

beaneh

This is dumb.

Period.

Unknown

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

This is dumb. Period.
Posted by beaneh

I'm genuinely surprised you managed to stay this polite beaneh.

Lambert180

It is stupid from the point of view of a person who understands and copes with variance but I do think I understand why he's doing it. He remembers the bad beats (as most people do) but never remembers the times he's dished out bad beats. So I think his aim is to track and realise 'hang on, I'm giving them out just as much as I get them, so I should stop getting so down about it'

Most people know that it will even out, and deep down I think Don does too, but if seeing it in black and white helps Don realise that he isn't any luckier or unlucky than any other player, it might help him cope with it.

Personally when I take bad beats, it still hurts especially when it's at crucial moments, but I try to think that it will even out and so if I've took a few bad ones, it's only a matter of time before I give a few bad ones out. Manys the time, I've got it all in pre with AQ short stacked at the end of an MTT and luckboxed against AK (as we all have).

rancid

fred tilts me

plz close fred

Don


SERIOUSLY!

The_Don90

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

It is stupid from the point of view of a person who understands and copes with variance but I do think I understand why he's doing it. He remembers the bad beats (as most people do) but never remembers the times he's dished out bad beats. So I think his aim is to track and realise 'hang on, I'm giving them out just as much as I get them, so I should stop getting so down about it' Most people know that it will even out, and deep down I think Don does too, but if seeing it in black and white helps Don realise that he isn't any luckier or unlucky than any other player, it might help him cope with it. Personally when I take bad beats, it still hurts especially when it's at crucial moments, but I try to think that it will even out and so if I've took a few bad ones, it's only a matter of time before I give a few bad ones out. Manys the time, I've got it all in pre with AQ short stacked at the end of an MTT and luckboxed against AK (as we all have).
Posted by Lambert180

exactly why i done this lambert ty.

its already helped me spot 4 or 5 leaks in my game

WHOAMI196

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

It is stupid from the point of view of a person who understands and copes with variance but I do think I understand why he's doing it. He remembers the bad beats (as most people do) but never remembers the times he's dished out bad beats. So I think his aim is to track and realise 'hang on, I'm giving them out just as much as I get them, so I should stop getting so down about it' Most people know that it will even out, and deep down I think Don does too, but if seeing it in black and white helps Don realise that he isn't any luckier or unlucky than any other player, it might help him cope with it. Personally when I take bad beats, it still hurts especially when it's at crucial moments, but I try to think that it will even out and so if I've took a few bad ones, it's only a matter of time before I give a few bad ones out. Manys the time, I've got it all in pre with AQ short stacked at the end of an MTT and luckboxed against AK (as we all have).
Posted by Lambert180

Nice not to jump on the band wagon of hating this thread and coming up with words to dons logic. If there is reason then theres no need to question.

Don if this somehow improves you'r Mental game, then who is to say its stupid, gl.

rancid

Would think time is better spent asking yourself if you should be in the flip in the first place

probability will always be constant, your game may not

AMYBR

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

Would think time is better spent asking yourself if you should be in the flip in the first place probability will always be constant, your game may not
Posted by rancid

Very well said

unknown_username

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

. . .  For example if he wins 40 or less flips out of 100 this has a probability of <2.5%.
Posted by grantorino

Can you explain please? Isn't +/- 10 from an expectation of 50 (50 wins/50 losses) still within one standard deviation - which covers 68.2% of the population (of a 100 in the sample you refer to)?

The_Don90

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

Would think time is better spent asking yourself if you should be in the flip in the first place probability will always be constant, your game may not
Posted by rancid

Its helping me look into that. and picking up mistakes. Simple mistakes that i can asess and fix.

Its helped me, weather others like the idea or not it works for me and thats what matters in my eyes.

Must be nice not to have mental issues rthat can effect there game. But some people dnt want to understand how others work thats fine by me.

grantorino

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

In Response to Re: my little experiment. : Can you explain please? Isn't +/- 10 from an expectation of 50 (50 wins/50 losses) still within one standard deviation - which covers 68.2% of the population (of a 100 in the sample you refer to)?
Posted by Goethe

standard deviation is 5, pretty sure that part of my calc is correct. Entirely possible I've done something wrong though

unknown_username

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

In Response to Re: my little experiment. : standard deviation is 5, pretty sure that part of my calc is correct. Entirely possible I've done something wrong though
Posted by grantorino

Seems low for a sample of 100. If 5 were "the" standard deviation (a term commonly used to refer to 3xStdDevs calculated each side of the EV), then if you repeated an exercise (of flipping a coin 100 times) a thousand times, then in only 27 cases out of the 1,000 (100%-99.73%) would you have more than 55 heads or tails occuring? My gut feeling is that there's a greater probability of a +/-5 result than 0.27%?

walesboy

must admit Don don't see the point of this, BUT I am not you
if it helping you improve your game in any way carry on doing it
every one is different and sees things differently

good luck

grantorino

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

In Response to Re: my little experiment. : Seems low for a sample of 100. If 5 were "the" standard deviation (a term commonly used to refer to 3xStdDevs calculated each side of the EV), then if you repeated an exercise (of flipping a coin 100 times) a thousand times, then in only 27 cases out of the 1,000 (100%-99.73%) would you have more than 55 heads or tails occuring? My gut feeling is that there's a greater probability of a +/-5 result than 0.27%?
Posted by Goethe

Not really getting your posts. 1 standard deviation is 5. Why has standard deviation somehow changed from 1 standard deviation to 3 (even though you use the 68% figure in your first post)

Its a binomial distribution, standard deviation is sqrt npq, which over a sample of 100 flips =5 . I didnt use empirical rule for my calc, but it should give roughly same result. 5% lie outside 2 sds fom mean, so 2.5% below mean -2 standard deviations

The calc you use above, 0.27% lie outside 35-65

The_Don90

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

In Response to Re: my little experiment. : Not really getting your posts. 1 standard deviation is 5. Why has standard deviation somehow changed from 1 standard deviation to 3 (even though you use the 68% figure in your first post) Its a binomial distribution, standard deviation is sqrt npq, which over a sample of 100 flips =5 . I didnt use empirical rule for my calc, but it should give roughly same result. 5% lie outside 2 sds fom mean, so 2.5% below mean -2 standard deviations The calc you use above, 0.27% lie outside 35-65
Posted by grantorino

tbh when i get to 100 if it shows 75 wins or loses, and 25 of the other i wouldnt be disappointed. I know its about the long term gain.

pod1

a little trickle of blood has just come out my ear regarding your post gt. "emperical rule" binomial distribution" i thought were are here to play pokers innit?

grantorino

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

a little trickle of blood has just come out my ear regarding your post gt. "emperical rule" binomial distribution" i thought were are here to play pokers innit?
Posted by pod1

sorry podster, was asked about the math so replied. I realise it not of interest to most

You really should go to a doctor about that ear, sounds worrying

pod1

lol, been awake 29 hrs and i think something popped, no big deal i still have another one :-)

unknown_username

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

In Response to Re: my little experiment. : Not really getting your posts. 1 standard deviation is 5. Why has standard deviation somehow changed from 1 standard deviation to 3 (even though you use the 68% figure in your first post) Its a binomial distribution, standard deviation is sqrt npq, which over a sample of 100 flips =5 . I didnt use empirical rule for my calc, but it should give roughly same result. 5% lie outside 2 sds fom mean, so 2.5% below mean -2 standard deviations The calc you use above, 0.27% lie outside 35-65
Posted by grantorino

I think this is an issue of terminology. 3 x StdDevs = 99.73% of a population, but many times I've seen this 99.73% referred to as "the" standard deviation. You've calculated this to be 5 from a sample of 100? I haven't done the sums myself, just commented that it seems on the low side for a 50/50 event.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

a little trickle of blood has just come out my ear regarding your post gt. "emperical rule" binomial distribution" i thought were are here to play pokers innit?
Posted by pod1

You're right. Sorry.

pod1

must admit goethe i just ran the figures myself in my head and gt is right, oh i see you just worked that out yourself, cant believe you got this simple maths wrong x

davelufc

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

In Response to Re: my little experiment. : I think this is an issue of terminology. 3 x StdDevs = 99.73% of a population, but many times I've seen this 99.73% referred to as "the" standard deviation. You've calculated this to be 5 from a sample of 100? I haven't done the sums myself, just commented that it seems on the low side for a 50/50 event.
Posted by Goethe

You sure it`s not 99.74% ? lol.

Gee, theres some boffins on here!! Slightly above me i`m afraid.

Lolz @ pod1 re: `blood trickling out of ear`  Cheers! i splattered pot noodle over laptop when i read that!!

unknown_username

For any of you numbers bores (like me) I found this on the Coventry University web site - part of the supporting materials for a stats module. I think it should clear up any misunderstandings that have arisen. It's locked so you can't change any of the underlying logic.

http://nestor.coventry.ac.uk/~nhunt/binomial/discus35.xls

For Don90's experiment, it will also be useful so that he can check back his actual results against it. Just change the value for "n" (number of instances) and "p" (probability of an event, expressed as a decimal), and it will instantly give a range of expected results that would be considered to be "normal". You could, for example, put in the 80% probability for overpair v underpair and see just how many times you'd expect to win/lose on a given number of instances. I've done it and it shows that winning as little as 68/100 is still "normal variance".

This is me finished with SkyPoker now (hooray I expect some of you will say). Account balance is nil, and the last of my poker points were spent on one of the freeroll MTT yesterday evening. My experiment over a year to determine the underlying numbers in the game has led me to believe that, although I've improved, my playing style isn't right to make me a winning player without playing at higher stakes and with a lower %age buy-in - an average of 18% advantage still isn't enough to put my overall results in the black.

So that's it. I shall cause no more ear bleeding. Good luck to everyone and, of course, good cards in the future.

The_Don90

In Response to Re: my little experiment.:

For any of you numbers bores (like me) I found this on the Coventry University web site - part of the supporting materials for a stats module. I think it should clear up any misunderstandings that have arisen. It's locked so you can't change any of the underlying logic. http://nestor.coventry.ac.uk/~nhunt/binomial/discus35.xls For Don90's experiment, it will also be useful so that he can check back his actual results against it. Just change the value for "n" (number of instances) and "p" (probability of an event, expressed as a decimal), and it will instantly give a range of expected results that would be considered to be "normal". You could, for example, put in the 80% probability for overpair v underpair and see just how many times you'd expect to win/lose on a given number of instances. I've done it and it shows that winning as little as 68/100 is still "normal variance". This is me finished with SkyPoker now (hooray I expect some of you will say). Account balance is nil, and the last of my poker points were spent on one of the freeroll MTT yesterday evening. My experiment over a year to determine the underlying numbers in the game has led me to believe that, although I've improved, my playing style isn't right to make me a winning player without playing at higher stakes and with a lower %age buy-in - an average of 18% advantage still isn't enough to put my overall results in the black. So that's it. I shall cause no more ear bleeding. Good luck to everyone and, of course, good cards in the future.
Posted by Goethe

best of luck mate ill use that link youve gave me as excel was a programme ive always struggled with. I can do basic programming but no a massive % of it.