Quote:
Originally Posted by stoopmonkey
Ok, so you have the data to back up this claim:
But you just don't want to look at it and tell us the results.
I believe you do have the data. But I also believe you decided to pull these stats out of your ass instead of looking at the data you have.
All i'm asking is for is the proof you say you have. Open up pokertracker, or HEM, and look. You will find out how wrong you are.
I don't mean to troll or flame you. But I think this could be a great learning experience for many other players who think they are capable of estimating their results over hundreds of thousands of hands. When in reality, their emotions make all of their calculations extremely inaccurate. You're a human.
Honestly, you are trying to have it both ways. You are not big enough to admit when you are wrong, but you want others to admit they are wrong. And you assume they are wrong based upon your own preconceived notions, but when you think others are doing that you point out how flawed it is. Do you see the contradiction?
I also think its not surprising that as a regular poster, somebody else will come pile on with the +1. OK. Whatever.
You twisted my words and I still don't think you understood any of the points I was trying to make. I was saying something a little more subtle than "anybody who thinks the site might not be totally random is a Riggy! Nah nah!"
Here's a few things I can agree to.
1. People have trouble guessing their actual results without actually looking at their hand history. Agreed (this probably applies to you too ... never heard you list any stats from your hand history on any of the examples I posed ... you mentioned 300K hands, but I have no context for what you meant by that)
2. People generally have their own preconceived notions and are slow to open their minds beyond them. Agreed (actually, this applies to you too)
3. I am a human (so far, no decisive evidence to the contrary)
BTW, I also take into account hands that have happened at tables I played / was watching. One could argue I might be emotional about my own results (sometimes, not always). But it's a stretch to say my emotions get in the way of interpreting somebody else's results.
And no, after being flamed, I have no desire to share any more information on this topic. I have a series of ideas I am kicking around, but I never made any claims ... just provided examples in response to a question.
It's interesting, you never mentioned the example I gave regarding the royal flushes (an extremely unlikely series of events). You seem fixated on the dominated hands example. Is there a reason?