Quote:
Oh yeah, let me know when you scrape together your evidence of people with 30% VPIP in very tight and aggressive games who are big winners, I'm excited to see the data.
-James
With the hypothesis that the topic of this thread is in fact a big winnier with 30% VPIP, have you worked out the P value that the hypothesis is false? You know, you can use Baysean Statistical Inference to blend expert oppinion and empiracal data (though as the amount of data rises, the influence of the expert oppinion on the interpretation shrinks).
We are not dealing with pure math here. Since humans are involved, this is a question of science. To explain that: In math you assume certain truths and then derive implications. You can show expicitly that certain things are true given the assumptions. In science, you formulate threories to explain observations, then make novel predictions based on the theories and test those predictions experimentally. Then you statistiacally evaluate the results of those experiments to determine the level of confidence you have in the theories.
In science, there are no absolute laws, there are only theories which you have confidence in. (For those who say "Well what about the Law of Gravity??" It is the theory of gravity and the "Law of Gravity" (Fg = G*m1m2/r^2) does NOT reflect our current theory how gravity works, though it is a good enough approximation in many cases.)
The whole point of me (futilely) chiming in here is that there is a lot of oppinion and intuition being bandied about with bravado. We have numbers, we have data, why are people arguing oppinion instead of doing math?