I wouldn't categorize winning big and going broke living from fleabag to fleabag on the fringes of the world chasing a crack high into the gates of insanity as living, but everyone's got a different idea about what constitutes the good life I guess.

Why do americans idolise weed?

I dont get the fascination with Americans dicking it, Its ****ing wank!

Anyone?

You guys complaining about the sample size: Do you have any idea what the +/- margin of error is for such a sample or how to calculate it? You would probably be stunned at how few people are surveyed for stuff like Presidential races or approval ratings and that's representing the entire freaking country.

Go call CBS or USA Today and laugh at their 1k person sample-size to represent over 100M voters. And they can refer you to a guy who actually understands the math who can explain how it actually is close enough for a +/- margin of error of 4% or something. (the reason they only tell you the +/- and don't directly tell you how few people they asked is precisely because of the overreaction of people who don't understand that a really small sample can work fine for a really large population).

Also note that I'm not sure the 60k number at the end is accurate for what some think it is. Would like some clarification on this. Is that the total number of individual players at the WSOP? It seems they might have just taken the grand total of entrants for all WSOP events and thrown that out there. But since a lot of people play more than one event it's just not representative. I don't know though and don't care to look.

But if you are going to whine about the 198 sample size then provide SOME kind of math as to why it's wrong or what the margin of error is. Just guessing that the sample is too small without having any real idea whether it gets you kind of in the ballpark just makes you look silly.

It doesn't matter if they're representing 100M voters or 10k voters, the 1k sample should have the same margin of error.

/stats101

Nuff said.

That's why.