Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroBob
These are some awesome facts you have chosen to share with us. I thank you. Can you please provide some of the methodology you used to determine these facts? Exactly how is it that your sample size is beyond the realm of the statistically improbable?
I mean, without providing any mathematical analysis of how improbable this is it kind of looks like you are just throwing the phrase "statistically improbable" out there without knowing at all how likely or unlikely such a run might be. But since you never post opinions and always post facts I know that must be incorrect.
I particularly enjoyed this part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavian30
Of the hands (613) I had 50% or better I should have won 65% - I have actually only won 51% - 21% down on what any sane person could reasonably expect.
So any sane person could reasonably expect nothing less than 65%? Really??
OP, if you want to be taken seriously, you should think about dialing down the hyperbole several notches. And you've been asked some very reasonable questions WRT your claims of the improbability of your stats - how about backing up your conclusions with some kind of hint as to how you arrived at them rather than calling everyone's posts stupidity and asking them for facts. Provide some facts yourself; you're the one making all the claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octavian30
1000 pre-flop All Ins represents about 40k hands by the way
How is this relevant?
Let's say I believe that I have a die that comes up with the number 6 far too often, but only on Mondays from 7-8 PM. I have a sample of 1,000 die rolls in a given week, but only 10 of them happened in that time frame, and 6 came up twice, 17% more than expected. Is your sample size 1,000, or 10? Is 1,000 even relevant?
Last edited by Bobo Fett; 11-29-2010 at 11:54 PM.
Reason: It isn't.