Quote:
Please stick to the assumption the data is from that very day's play and that it is not cherry picked and the videos are authentic.
But that's a false assumption that anyone can verify by putting the hand history numbers into the PokerStars client. Why would we work on demonstrably false assumptions? See below for the details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xevoius
QUESTION (pertaining to the YouTube PokerStars videos):
If you had the same exact results as him day after day with that many river and runner runner beats in big pots for that many sessions, (looks to be about a little over 50) would you chock it up to pure variance of the game or would you think there was a slight possibility something else is effecting the outcome of the hand?
www.youtube.com/pokerman1978
Well, any consideration of "beats" needs to take into account how many hands were played.
I've just looked at the first video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXMUPjhTQSk
I've marked my comments by the timeline of the video:
0:00 - 0:32
-Hand #38611290873
-This hand was played on 2010/01/23 at 14:39:21 ET (as anyone can check from the HH number)
-The JJ is a 55% favourite to win*. This is like 22 v AK. Losing what is almost a coinflip isn't really much of a beat.
-It's in a $1.20 tournament.
0:33 - 2:31
-Hand #38617390911
-Played at 2010/01/23 16:36:17 ET
-QQ is a 72% favourite to win. The chances of losing that hand is slightly smaller than rolling a six-sided die, and getting a five or a six.
-It's in a $2.20 tournament
-I note that during this hand, he gets dealt JJ and shoves allin. Presumably it wasn't a beat?
2:32 - 3:11
-Hand #38673156961
-Played at 2010/01/24 17:26:41 ET
-On the flop, A5 is a 71% favourite. On the turn, this has dropped to being only a 68% favourite
-He puts the vast majority of his money in on the river with the worst hand, when every conceivable draw has hit: both the flushes and straight draws.
-It's a $2.75 tournament
3:12 - 3:47
-Hand #38635825284
-Played at 2010/01/24 0:24:13 ET
-QQ is a 55% favourite.
-Losing coinflips is not a "beat" imo.
-It's a $1.20 tournament
3:48 - 4:15
Something about OPR; not a hand.
4:16 - 6:00
-Hand #38687598744
-Played at 2010/01/24 23:47:50 ET
-Of the players who called the flop bet (including michf50), AK would win 65% of the time.
-If he's concerned about getting outdrawn by bad players, why would he limp preflop? That maximises the opportunity to do so.
-After the turn bets, AK would win around 88% of the time (ie, excluding michf50).
-He puts in the vast majority of his stack (around 920 chips) when he has the worst hand. People who put their money in behind shouldn't complain about bad beats, imo.
6:01 - 7.32
-Hand #38692076399
-Played at 2010/01/25 3:44:05 ET
-He's raises all-in to 7 big blinds; it seems entirely predictable for him to be called by a weak hand
-He's a 61% favourite. I guess that's slightly better than a coinflip, but 3:2 is not a huge edge
-A $4.40 tournament
7.33 - 8:17
-Hand #38797019069
-Played at 2010/01/27 5:41:58 ET
-A $4.40 tournament
-Pre-flop, in the three way spot, he's a 37% favourite
-After the flop betting he has a 8% chance of winning the hand
-After the turn betting he has a 5% chance of winning the hand
-It's not a "bad beat" if he's the underdog
8:18 -
-Hand #38895710328
-Played at 2010/01/29 3:48:02 ET
-A $3.40 tournament
-After the preflop betting, he is a 66% favourite
-After the flop betting, is a 84% favourite.
-His chances of losing from here are almost precisely the same chance as rolling a six-sided die, and getting a six.
-After the turn betting, he is a only a 77% chance to win the whole pot.
-Thus, 1 out of 4 times, he won't win the whole pot.
-In the commentary, he mistakenly says that a Ten will split the pot.
Also, on the issue of buy-in, it seems to me to be entirely natural for small stakes games to have weak players in them - and what do weak players do a lot? They put their money in behind. So, if you have lots of situations where players put their money in behind, there are lots more opportunities to outdraw the leading player.
So, we have 8 hands in that video. Of those 8 hands:
-Two of them were coinflips
-One he was just better than a coinflip
-Two genuine "bad beats"
-Two where he puts his money all-in behind
-One email where he was actually an underdog to win
Quote:
If you had the same exact results as him day after day with that many river and runner runner beats in big pots for that many sessions, (looks to be about a little over 50) would you chock it up to pure variance of the game or would you think there was a slight possibility something else is effecting the outcome of the hand?
I'd suggest that before he tries to blame external factors that he should take a good hard look at himself and his own play here.
*All pot odds calculations courtesy of www.pokervillain.com