05-06-2005 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
And what about the possibility that poker results do not follow a normal distribution, but rather something with fatter tails.
It doesn't matter what distribution results for a single hand follow, if you are dealing with sums (or means) of sets of hands those sums or means will follow a normal distribution. (That's just the central limit theorem). So you can say for instance that results from 100 hand chunks will be normally distributed.
05-06-2005 , 07:52 PM
Quote:
It doesn't matter what distribution results for a single hand follow, if you are dealing with sums (or means) of sets of hands those sums or means will follow a normal distribution. (That's just the central limit theorem). So you can say for instance that results from 100 hand chunks will be normally distributed.
This is way over simplified. The sums tend towards a normal distribution, and it could take a long time to approach the point where a normal distribution is a good approximation, especially at the extremes. Add in the possibility that the individual hands in groups of hand results from one player are not independent, and this reduces your effective sample size further. I know this is a lot of conjecture when I haven't worked with the numbers, but it's something to be considered.
05-07-2005 , 07:28 AM
who is cypher?
05-07-2005 , 04:00 PM
Quote:

There is not a 1 in 50 chance that he is good here. I would never cap worse than AJ here on purpose.
This is my favorite analysis of the hand. Clearly the universe revolves around James, and all players should act accordingly.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com
05-07-2005 , 04:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:

There is not a 1 in 50 chance that he is good here. I would never cap worse than AJ here on purpose.
This is my favorite analysis of the hand. Clearly the universe revolves around James, and all players should act accordingly.

- Andrew

Maybe not the world, but I am comfortable with poker discussion revolving around him.
05-07-2005 , 04:17 PM
Quote:

Hey Andrew - you are saying that when I cap out of the small blind and lead every street into multiple opponents, even regardless of their action, there is a greater than 0% chance that AJ unimproved is good on the river?

No. I'm not saying that at all.

In fact, it seems that you don't even know what the actual problem that needs to be solved is. Not only do you not know how to solve the problem, you don't even know how to formulate it.

Not very surprising really.

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
I have the data, and no, I'm not sharing.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com
05-07-2005 , 05:18 PM
To believe that i'm a cheat is ridiculous. I am one of the biggest winners in that game and the reason is ; i'm good. Playing with all of you day in and day out just needs some other level of play . Calling a riverbet when beat doesn't look smart but actions like that obviously make you believe i'm a terrible player. That's all i asked for. Some wannebe pros that don't take me serious. I will continue to collect.

C u at the tables.
05-07-2005 , 05:26 PM
If this were true you would never post here. In the midst of wannabe pro land.
05-07-2005 , 05:40 PM

Quote:
In fact, it seems that you don't even know what the actual problem that needs to be solved is. Not only do you not know how to solve the problem, you don't even know how to formulate it.
Admittedly, it's possible you are operating on a higher plane than I am. However, this kind of statement, if you are in fact correct, adds no value to my favorite forum. Include myself in the camp of people who don't know how to formulate this problem you speak of. I believe this particular river overcall is asymptotically close to an EV of -1BB. Please share with me *why* I am wrong, not simply tell me that I am.

If you want to play. please contribute.
05-07-2005 , 05:44 PM
Quote:
I have the data, and no, I'm not sharing
I have a lot of data myself.

I don't mind sharing that james is easily in the top 1% of players in the party 15 and 30 games.
05-07-2005 , 05:54 PM
In case you didn't realize, the man in question knows James, and James was the person actually in this hand.

So yes, DERB's chances of winning the hand do revolve around James's cold-capping standards.
05-08-2005 , 01:15 PM
Quote:

I have the data, and no, I'm not sharing.

There appear to be some readers still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I believe your credibility diminishes substantially when you make statements like this.
05-08-2005 , 05:02 PM
Quote:
I can see what you're saying, but I think being stuck 4k after 56k hands is a bit different from making 3bb/100 over 145k. From reading your posts to date, I'd be willing to bet it turns around for you, and probably soon.

As for the dude, either a.) this is a very rare statistical anomoly, b.) there is some form of collusion happening, or c.) he is a world-class player, so good that he can make hands profitable that the VAST majority of other players could not

This is real interesting - Jags
I can't imagine being stuck any after 56K hands in this game.

-Scott
05-09-2005 , 12:00 AM
Quote:
Quote:

I have the data, and no, I'm not sharing.

There appear to be some readers still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I believe your credibility diminishes substantially when you make statements like this.
Just because I love to play The Devil's Advocate, featuring Keanu Reeves... If I had extensive statistics that showed players that maintained stats that would be considered 'abornmal' by the majority of the poker playing population, while maintaining higher winrates than most, I would probably either be one of those players, or be attempting to emulate them. Either way, if I weren't independently wealthy already, I would almost certainly keep them to myself.

Though it wouldn't really matter, because even if I had a database of 20 players, with 600k hands a piece, winning &gt;3BB/100 in the Party 30 game, with VP\$IPs of well over 30 while fullhanded, the chance of anybody here taking me seriously would be LESS than the chance that James is cold-capping a hand that AJ is ahead of.

EDIT: I'm not trying to say that this player is a winner, or even that a VPIP of over 30 can beat this game. Anything I know about the Party 15 game comes from about 400 hands and a bunch of hearsay. Anything I know about higher games than that might, if combined with \$1.05 might be able to get you 5 chicken nuggets from Wendy's, depending on what state you live in.

EDIT AGAIN: "abornmal" is one of the best typos I've ever had the pleasure of posting, so I decided to let it stand.
05-09-2005 , 12:40 AM
Hey I started reading this thread when it first started and I am now too lazy to read the entire thing. Anyone wanna give me the verdict on this guy? Has there been one? cheater? just an awesome super LAG who knows all the players in the game good enough to get payed?
05-09-2005 , 10:38 AM
You lazy piece of ....

Ok, no verdict.

Half the world feels he's cheating.

Half the world thinks we should explore how he does it.

No details yet.

Oh...and someone pretending to be the villian posted saying that we are all a bunch of jerks....he's probably right, but I can live with that.

Good luck.

Dave
05-09-2005 , 12:06 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

I have the data, and no, I'm not sharing.

There appear to be some readers still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I believe your credibility diminishes substantially when you make statements like this.
Just because I love to play The Devil's Advocate, featuring Keanu Reeves... If I had extensive statistics that showed players that maintained stats that would be considered 'abornmal' by the majority of the poker playing population, while maintaining higher winrates than most, I would probably either be one of those players, or be attempting to emulate them. Either way, if I weren't independently wealthy already, I would almost certainly keep them to myself.

Hi,

I liked that movie too.

If what you say were the case then I don't think I'd be on this thread bragging about how there's this secret new style of play that's ultra profitable. I'd be keeping it to myself.

It appears to be a pretty clear bluff, IMHO.
05-09-2005 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Quote:

Hey Andrew - you are saying that when I cap out of the small blind and lead every street into multiple opponents, even regardless of their action, there is a greater than 0% chance that AJ unimproved is good on the river?

No. I'm not saying that at all.

In fact, it seems that you don't even know what the actual problem that needs to be solved is. Not only do you not know how to solve the problem, you don't even know how to formulate it.

Not very surprising really.

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
I have the data, and no, I'm not sharing.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com
ok, I'm gonna start off by saying that you are better at poker than me and you play bigger stakes and you have a bigger penis blah blah blah, so we've got that covered should you deem this message worth rebutting.

you are a douche. stop being so f-ing cryptic. you are making vague, generic arguments with no evidence or data to back you up, and you're defending your point like a first grader. "nuh-uh, YOURE wrong". you're smugly insisting you're right and you really have no basis for any of it

either
1) back up your arguments with some evidence, some data, or just some insightful logic, or

2) if you're so sure you're right, then use whatever mythical magical style you say works, keep it to yourself, make \$, and stop being such a prick.
05-09-2005 , 02:04 PM
This has been an interesting thread. I have but one request. When there is 0% useful content left and 100% flaming (over/under is 18 hours, unless Barron releases some numbers before then), may I be the one that gets to compare someone to Hitler?

2nd
05-09-2005 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
I probably misclick once every 75,000 clicks
nice nice, I think I misclick closer to 1 in 35,000. Yet another poker stat you kick my ass on! If you're going to factor in 1 in 75k though I think you should have also added chance that your ISP goes out, that you spill your drink on your keyboard, or that a bird flies in your window and causes you to time out
05-10-2005 , 08:45 AM
Quote:

you are a douche. stop being so f-ing cryptic. you are making vague, generic arguments with no evidence or data to back you up, and you're defending your point like a first grader.

Sorry, I'm just emulating the "Sklansky" style here. I'll let others elaborate.

Quote:

1) back up your arguments with some evidence, some data, or just some insightful logic, or

2) if you're so sure you're right, then use whatever mythical magical style you say works, keep it to yourself, make \$, and stop being such a prick.
I'm just here for my own personal amusement. As far as the simple logic, it's already been done. Statistics tell us that this guy is a winner. He's almost certainly a 1 BB/100 winner, and quite likely wins at a higher rate.

The idea that James can refute those statistics because "he knows" or because of a few anomalous hands is lunacy.

Simple logic says James doesn't know what he's talking about.

And, it's spelled p-r-O-c-k.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com
05-10-2005 , 09:38 AM
a nice reply. perhaps I misjudged. the only thing I disagree with is

Quote:
Statistics tell us that this guy is a winner. He's almost certainly a 1 BB/100 winner, and quite likely wins at a higher rate.
05-10-2005 , 10:00 AM
Quote:
Hey I started reading this thread when it first started and I am now too lazy to read the entire thing. Anyone wanna give me the verdict on this guy? Has there been one? cheater? just an awesome super LAG who knows all the players in the game good enough to get payed?
Anyone care to PM me with the screen name. I don't have the massive db's others have, so he doesn't jump out at me.

I call that Occam Razor guy. Simplest explanation is usually the correct one, or something like that.

Cheers
Magi
05-10-2005 , 01:59 PM
Quote:

The idea that James can refute those statistics because "he knows" or because of a few anomalous hands is lunacy.

Simple logic says James doesn't know what he's talking about.

www.pokerstove.com
A- it's not "a few" hands.

B- several posters have stated that this guy is not playing well.

What people are saying is "look at the numbers, he must be a winner"

But really everybody else is saying "we have numbers over a much longer period of time that tell us that playing like this means you won't win long term".

So to paint the position of James and others as going strickly on annecdotal evidence and ignoring hard numbers just isn't correct. The fact is that based on everything the 2+2 community knows and understands about how the stats relate to winning this guy just shouldn't be making money at the rate he is.
05-10-2005 , 02:09 PM
Quote:
Quote:

The idea that James can refute those statistics because "he knows" or because of a few anomalous hands is lunacy.

Simple logic says James doesn't know what he's talking about.

www.pokerstove.com
A- it's not "a few" hands.

B- several posters have stated that this guy is not playing well.

What people are saying is "look at the numbers, he must be a winner"

But really everybody else is saying "we have numbers over a much longer period of time that tell us that playing like this means you won't win long term".

So to paint the position of James and others as going strickly on annecdotal evidence and ignoring hard numbers just isn't correct. The fact is that based on everything the 2+2 community knows and understands about how the stats relate to winning this guy just shouldn't be making money at the rate he is.
They aren't ignoring the hard numbers. The numbers tell you that there is a 95% chance that he is a winner. Lots of people play the 30/60, he seems to be a lottery winner, that 5% one. Even if you put his stats into 99% or 99.99% confidence intervals the argument is still valid.

m