DERB Update:

Doesn't seem like the new influx of players is a good thing for DERB. Now there's 100 DERBs, and his corner of the market is getting crowded. Let the slide begin.

Either that, or my one hour sample size is too small.

Nah, I have DERB up 4625 in 476 hands today.

Yeah, I figured my sample size might suck. Guy is unbelievable.

The world no, but when playing a hand against me, your play oughta revolve aruond how I play. You are still stupid.
-James

Your smart enough to realize that DERB might have imperfect knowledge of you and how you play your hands.

PS - calling Andrew stupid is silly, he clearly is not and makes your position look weak.

Hmm, you must have missed this thread... DERB

He is stupid because he is continuing to pursue an indefensible position even after he has been shown to be in error countless numbers of times. I'm sure he is of above average intelligence, but he can't admit when he is wrong and he resorts to insults instead of providing any evidence to the contrary.

Look at his last response. It's basically a flowery way of saying "He must be a winner because he has won so far." He refuses to understand that the discussion is taking place in the context of "this guy has incredible results, but apparently plays a losing style of poker - let's figure out what's going on." He's basically just an old man version of the "PWNED LOL!" mindset. Keep saying how right you are until people finally believe you. If he comes forward with some actual calculations or evidence then I'll be more receptive to his arguments, otherwise, he can pretty much go [censored] himself.
-James

Classic. You're batting a high percentage with these types of posts recently.
-James

Posting a link to the thread we're in is awesome.

JV has become Dr. Frakenstein. The only thing missing is Alfred Hitchcock and some t*t.

I understand what you are saying...but the math is all on Andrew's side. DERB might "look" like a bad player, but he consistently wins. Over a long period of time for a high rate. That's my definition of a winning player. It's not just the high winrate or the long period of time, it's the combination that makes the arguement/math compelling.

It can't explain it, but it doesn't make it less true. And anecdotal evidence is notoriously weak. See Anecdotal evidence

It's a little like a trial, where the one eye witnesses say a person is the guilty, but the DNA evidence says it was someone else. The DNA evidence is so compelling and eye witness are somewhat unreliable, so we have to believe the DNA.

You can't say "I understand what you are saying" and then make an analogy that clearly shows that you don't understand what I'm saying if you want me to take your opinion seriously.
-James

I'm saying I understand he doesn't look like a typical, winning player.

And what you don't understand is that I'm saying I understand how unlikely it is, according to the math, that he is not actually playing a winning style. That is the whole point of the discussion.

before I look like a total [censored], does the data GUARANTEE that he is a winning player? let's say 99.99999999% sure.

No according to the math it there is maybe about 5% (not trivial) chance that he is a losing player. Then we have anecdotal evidence from some well respected players that would suggest that he is in fact a losing player.

I haven't played DERB, so I can't tell one way or the other. But I have in the past seen good players write of succesfull players because they played an untraditional strategy, so I reserve my judgement.

Where does this 5% number come from? I mean, I believe james is probably right and derb is the 'lotto winner' but I think over 100k hands it is much less than 5% that a bad player could win this much. I'd say less than 1% chance. This is the flipping the coin 10000 times and it comes up heads 70% of the time type situation.

Yeah, my instincts are telling me its easily gotta be less than 1% or we would have come across more of these guys by now.

You need a much larger sample than 100K to give him a winning confidence interval of 99%!

Even considering how high his BB/100 is?

I just learned about confidence intervals in a class. I should be able to figure this out. Im gonna try anyways.

edit-ok nm its already been done, i think this is what you are talking about anyways.

Yeah this is all standard basic statistics, so over this sample size 5% is more than reasonable. To do it out perfectly you'd need his standard deviation (which I guess whoever datamined this rediculous amount of hands has) but isn't the regular standard deviation for these games about 16 BB?

Also...didn't people figure out in previous posts that 95% confidence interval was around an average of 180K hands? or was that 99...Too dead tired to do it right now, I'll just read what NLsoldier posts...

Says something about my mentality that I'm too bushed to do basic statistics, yet i'm on the 2+2 forum typing away...Sweeeeet

5% would mean one in 20, so we'd be seeing a lot of other people playing like derb and making 3bb/100 if that were true. And that's assuming derb is a break even player, from what James says it sounds like he should be losing substantially, not breaking even.

I think you should take a course in statistics!

Edit: sorry, that was snotty of me. To say that there is 5% chance that DERB is a break even player is not the same as saying that 5% of all break even players will win this much over 100K hands. It is a particular estimate based on his sample.

Math is hard. The numbers don't say there's a 95% chance he's a winner. They say something else entirely.

When you start asserting that he's a lottery winner, the question then becomes:

"How do we know that James isn't the lottery winner?"

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com

Because James can look in his database and see himself outplaying this guy hand after hand?

Because James' stats are generally in alignment with the vast majority of winning poker players?

Because James has undoubtedly maintained his success far longer than 100k hands?

Shall I continue?