Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyrocket
copoka, try to keep the insane math calcs on to a minimum please
Ok. No math at all. Just some logic.
There are 2 events A and B
A is a "long term WR"
B is a recent downer.
Confidence for both events is calculated using the same methodology that takes away the need to consider a sample size.
As it happened, if A is true, B is impossible or close enough to it to make both events mutually exclusive.
As a reasonable person i have to conclude that
either
methodology, that went into calculation of both events is not suitable for this particular study
or
Events are independent. A was then and B is now, which makes A pretty much irrelevant, B - true reflection of the current situation and it's up to me to figure out where the troublesome difference has come from.
Process of figuring it out involves so many unknown variables that it seems like an impossible task. So I personally like the first conclusion a lot better.
Either way, I found the statements like "I have such a long history of being at A, that B must be nothing more but irrelevant bump on my road to continuing success" quite amusing.
There is a theory, that attempts to bring mutually exclusive nature of A and B to a peaceful coexistence. Its comforting and reassuring alright.
It works great in whole bunch of fields. But as far as poker, it's still just a theory until proven to be a fact.
I suspect, it would take a lot of insane math calcs to do so.
Quote:
Careful Johnny. He doesn't take kindly to luckboxes like yourself.
Where do you guys get this idea of my presumed feeling of dislike towards fellow poker players.
I have nothing but respect and admiration both for your results and skill level.