Have you ever noticed how the overpair often snaps two pair because the board pairs the other card? (For example, KK vs. J9 on a J96 flop) It almost seems that half the time J9 or whatever hand it is will get a full house, and then the other half the time the 6 will come to give the overpair the better two pair. The odds are supposed to be 27% or so for the overpair to suck out, but it seems like this happens far more than that.

This brings me to the next example, which is probably gonna sound newb because I realize J9 isn't supposed to be any more magical than the next hand, but this hand I swear hits two pair and full houses more than any non pocket pair that I've ever seen. One time I had 99 vs J9 on a JJ9 flop and some retard with a dead straight draw gutshot that he actually made on the turn was betting into both of us smooth calling in position the whole time...I was like wow, the odds...

And this next one...I find myself seeing AQ vs QQ in a showdown surprisingly frequently, even though I do not see AK vs KK nearly as often, but you would think the latter would be quicker to get it all in than the former because both hands are better in the latter example. Obviously, if you have QQ it's unlikely your opponent has AQ and vice versa, but it seems like this happens more often than any other combination of pocket pair vs. drawing hand combo, when the drawing hand shares a card of the pocket pair.

Is there any explanation for this besides simply variance? Obviously in the first situation an overpair vs two pair probably is likely to get it all in so we'll see more examples of this happening.

"It almost seems..."
"It seems like this happens..."
"I find myself seeing..."
"...but it seems like this happens..."

Either your memory is selective/incomplete, or your sample size is small, or both.

If you're talking about online play, you can look at the hand histories and that way you won't have to use the word "seems" again. Your trends either are or aren't present in your hand histories (and if they are, then the sample size is small).

All I see you writing about is some vague impressions you have based on no objective analysis at all.

The explanation for this is that you're a lowly human and cannot be trusted to objectively recall anything from a large sample size. The solution is to come up with a hypothesis, obtain a large unbiased sample, and test the hypothesis using standard statistical methods (not vague feelings).

Damn. There goes that theory.

It probably is mostly due to the fact that you are not very good at perceiving randomness. Nobody is:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/co...ng-randomness/
"""
The kind way to say it is: “Humans are really good at detecting patterns.” The less kind way is: “Humans are really good at detecting patterns, even when they don’t exist.”
"""

Hmm, it looks like somehow I've upset or offended some people here because I actually induced some name calling. That was unintended. I realize the data here is definitely skewed, but I figured the very definition of a forum is a meeting place to discuss ideas, questions..and I don't think I broke any rules there. Another issue is, I would've posted some hand histories to back this up except I'm from Washington state where I've been banned from the sites where I had this. I can't access it anymore. I agree that this is speculative, but as much as it is, nobody here actually responded to the whole point of the thread by agreeing or disagreeing with the main points of it. All replies are about how I'm a lowly human, not good at perceiving randomness etc. Best I can say is if you're going to run me into the ground make sure you do it properly by expounding on my shortcomings as a human being, because this thread by itself doesn't make me "low".

What data?

The larger point they are making is that your own personal experience is not enough to prove anything to them. You say you have seen these trends. However, millions of poker hands, flops, etc. have been objectively quantified and analyzed by people and none of these trends that you speak of have emerged. How is your own personal experience supposed to be weighted against the mountains of evidence against your theories?

Their argument (and I agree with them) is that your own personal experience should be given little to no weight. Because the phenomenon that you say exists doesn't seem to exist, they tried to explain a phenomenon that is all too common on these forums and elsewhere...namely that people tend to "see patterns" that do not exist in reality.

Here are some links to websites with actual data that you can read:
http://www.ispokerrigged.com/
http://www.spadebidder.com/

What name(s) were you called? Are you referring to "lowly human"? Do you mean to say you're not a human? Or that humans aren't lowly creatures in the grand scheme of things?

Ok perhaps that was a misinterpretation; I didn't think of that. Kinda happens through text sometimes. My apologies. Anyhow I pretty much agree. So yeah, I dunno if we could just delete this or whatever, but I wouldn't complain if we did.