Lets cut the bs (i mean by bs either gambler's fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy " its due" or just mocking it and moving on lol) and make the thread interesting if possible to learn something.
What if in fact there could be a reason to choose the "worse" provided both where winning events but the second had a more consistent results distribution and the first was rather less consistent but included a big final table win to put it significantly above the other.
Surely there may be a point where an argument can be made for going for the lowest historical return avg tournament (assuming they are not the same for some other reason ie different place and it wasnt a stupid discussion about 1$ events lol but something more substantial and it remained same in performance so ok it may not even be a poker case but something else) if you think the first one is involving an outlier result and the remaining samples dont look all that great in comparison to the other one.
The question is at which point and under what mathematical arguments if you have 2 samples of equal populations in each do you go for the inferior avg event if at all.
Lets say we know the distributions both have to obey but not the parameters.
We can discuss examples that this makes sense.
Last edited by masque de Z; 06-02-2016 at 05:03 AM.