This is incorrect.

This is pretty much what you can expect OP.

OP - you want some answers about what is wrong with the study. I'll give you a few. I did not read the whole thing because it is just too damned long and there are enough errors at the beginning. So I only looked at the beginning where he was evaluating hole cards.

A) He shows a graph indicating that he got fewer aces than anything else. B) And a graph that shows fewer pairs of aces than any other pair. C) And a graph showing a correlation between power rankings of suited connectors and the frequency of those connectors occurring in his sample.

So, in each case I took the numbers he provided, and conducted a chi-squared analysis on them, to determine if they differed from a uniform distribution. In all cases the results were not statistically significant, and not even close. In other words, the fluctuations in frequency of individual cards are consistent with them being randomly and uniformly selected; the fluctuations in pocket pairs are consistent with them being randomly and uniformly selected; the fluctuations in the suited connectors are consistent with them being randomly and uniformly selected.

If the suited connectors are statistically equal, then any correlation between the frequency of occurrence and anything else is purely coincidental, and is likely due to the small sample size. Note that for the correlation, the sample size is actually 12 - not the 50,000+ hands because the correlation is simply based on the 12 values found for suited connectors as they correspond to the 12 values of power rankings. I don't think you will find many actual scientists getting overly excited about a correlation based on 12 cases.

I did not go any further for a number of reasons. First, the bulk of what happens in the vast majority of hands is determined by the preflop action. Second, his further assertions are going to be much harder to define (how do you define cooler, etc.). Third, everything after that is also going to be based on considerably smaller sample sizes - all hands see the preflop cards; only a portion of those see a flop; only a portion of those the turn; and fewer still see a river - and even fewer get to showdown. Fourth, everything that goes on after the deal is highly dependent upon how people play the hand.

Truth? That seems like a good thing.

To be honest I did not care a ton as they were all amateur hour threats. His mixing of wanting to break all my teeth alongside his claim of bagging a ton of hot women was a tad creative as these things go (kind of an angry Tommy Vu sales pitch - YOU LIKE MY WOMEN I PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE!!), but the multiple attempts to quantify how often I got laid started to get a bit dull, and he kept filling up my mailbox, so I had to report him, primarily for his lack of being creative and amusing, and forcing me to delete his messages to free up space to get messages from people that matter.

He said it was a gimmick account so I assume nothing can really come out of it, which is fine, but perhaps if and when he calms down he will assess whether his internet road rage style reaction was proportional to the back and forth in this thread (which was fairly tame), and realize that that a complete lack of emotional stability, rather than a bogus study, is likely playing a key role in why the industry is passing or has passed him by.

I am closing the thread as its value is now conclusively highly negative and, if left open, would nose-dive even further into the abyss.