And a standard deviation of 70 per 100 hands is equivalent to a standard deviation of about 40 for an hour of live play. And the ratio of the expectation divided by the standard deviation (per an hour of play) is now 3/40 which is 0.075, is probably marginal especially if you're playing small stakes. (I like to see 10 percent or higher for a strong winning player in a particular game).

Again, I'm going to refer back to my Gambling Theory book where all this stuff is thoroughly discussed. Also, the first edition of this book was published all the way back in 1987, and the math doesn't change.

Mason

I don't like seeing fake experts give bad advice with authority and then try to sell books to unsuspecting suckers. You have never shown any results or proof that you beat the games, and you regularly make dubious remarks while hawking your books (like a snakeoil salesman and carnival barker). This is well known to be unethical behavior, but you've gotten away with it over the years. Guess what? People are going to point this out when you post on a public forum.

Your statement quoted below is a good example of this, like many other of your statements. You are talking about 3500 hands and saying "being ahead becomes highly probable", which is a statistically illiterate thing to say. Most online players understand this because we can play millions of hands over the years.

On top of variance in the game. There is also a lot of luck you need outside of the game.
Linus start playing when he was 18, he wouldn't be where he is if he discovered poker later in life. Jungleman made more money than Linus just because he was at right palce at right time. Running good at high stakcs having good enough life circumstances so you can play ect. There are a lot of things that are outside of your control that affect good poker results.

There is interesting video on this topic

https://youtu.be/3LopI4YeC4I?si=H7CPMcX7FlNgsRd-

So I write a book based on statistical theory and that makes me a "fake expert." The original edition of this book was published in 1987 and the material relative to what we're discussing here is essentially unchanged from what was written up at that time. Also, earlier this year I came out with an expanded edition of this book and gave away several hundred copies of it (and you can find that thread on this forum). So don't accuse me of trying to sell this book to "unsuspecting customers."

Perhaps in the not too distant future I'll give it away again since it appears that there are still some people here, like you, who would benefit from it.

You really have little understanding of how this stuff works and again my Gambling Theory book would be very helpful to you. To be more specific, one of the chapters is titled "How Much Do You Need" and in that chapter there are tables that show "Number of Hours to Assure a Win" based on three standard deviations (and some other assumptions) for different win rates and different standard deviations.

Also, you should quote me correctly. My words included "and you play well compared to the other players," and that makes a big difference.

MM

Saulo just sent out a newsletter on how much of a factor luck is in poker as well.

A lot of people can't handle this truth though.

Mason is definitely not a fake expert, you would be the fraud in this case.

Also post your online results (you won't).

I will post my results once I declare myself to be an expert and start advertising poker coaching/books for sale, proclaiming "Step right up! Come one, come all! You too can make lots of money! Just follow my advice! All for a low, low price!"

I'm an MDA coach so you would definitely be better at the theory/math aspect of poker although I am not bad at it. $100/hr is not a lot of money for the data I'm providing so your statement isn't correct.

I'm not an expert, you don't have to be an expert to offer coaching. That's a false equivalence.

Again, post you results (you won't because you are a fraud).

But this post isn't about my coaching though so try to keep on topic.

If you're only charging $100 per hour for your coaching, that's cheap compared to some of these other people.

Mason

I already posted a variance simulation debunking your claim that a win is "highly probable" over that sample. You shifted the goalposts with your subsequent posts. Now you are just speaking vaguely, whereas before, you gave a 100 hour sample.

There is a guy ITT who cherrypicked a 60k hand sample and is selling coaching for $100/hr based on his winrate for that sample. Do you think that's ethical? That is the type of behavior you are encouraging when you advertise your books (some of which are about strategy).

If you never sold strategy advice, you wouldn't be obligated to post results. But you chose to do that, and now you choose not to back up your claims. I choose to call you out on it. If you don't like my tone, I also don't like your condescending tone either. And you sign each of your posts, which is against forum rules. I guess it makes you feel more important than everyone else or something. Do you know how annoying it would be if everyone signed their posts?

Sincerely,
editundo

I'm reading and reviewing your new book with Sklansky and I'm almost done with it. I want to make sure I post the review in the right spot, should I post it here?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...42/index4.html

Mason is clearly an expert in poker theory, if you don't understand that then I suggest some coaching.

As for the other claim, I didn't cherry pick 65k hands, those are my most recent hands (check the dates) because I've gotten better at the game over time. My coaching is also data from a 245 million hand DB. Most people don't have the access/time to run H2Note reports all day so I provide a shortcut to learn basic and more advanced MDA.

Sincerely,

DooDooPoker

I'm sorry, but this paragraph shows how little you understand about this subject. Again, it's all explained in my book. You just can't look at one particular simulation with a specific expectation and a specific standard deviation. You need to develop an understanding of the relationship of these two parameters and how this relationship can affect your results.

I've learned over the years, and this includes my professional career where I worked for the US Census Bureau and the Northrop Corporation (now Northrop-Grumman) how counter-intuitive this type of theory is for most people. And this shows in your posts, especially since you refuse to listen.

I'm not encouraging any behavior. All I'm doing is commenting on how the underlying statistical theory relates to this stuff.

I've been talking about statistical theory and I am highly qualified to talk about this stuff.

This paragraph is really strange. Are you aware that I'm the one, with some help from others, who started this website (and forums) in 1997? And as the majority site owner until this site was sold a little less than three years ago, I always signed my posts and have opted to continue to do so

Mason

Mods can you please retitle thread to “swongz they r 1 thing”? Thanks.

This will be my last post on the matter, but I'll read your response if there is one (although I don't expect it to be anything other than evasive).

I understand perfectly fine that a 3500 hand sample is incredibly small, so much so, that you are making a fool out of yourself pretending like your original statement was correct. You could have just said you made a mistake or misspoke, but instead you prefer to shift goalposts and try to save face.

I'm talking about in general when you advertise poker strategy books and teach poker strategy with authority, despite no proof whatsoever that you beat the games. This not only teaches your students to be gullible, but it also encourages scammers to take advantage of this gullibility.

I brought it up as a sort of analogy. You do things which if everyone else did it also, it would be bad. If everyone sold poker advice without proof of skills, it would be bad, just like it would be very annoying if everyone signed their posts. It also makes you look a bit silly, despite purporting yourself to be an intellectual. Everyone's name is already on each post (and in your case with bright red bold letters), so it adds nothing to sign it, and causes the user to unnecessarily scroll. Obviously this is not a big deal, but it's a tell about your attitude.

I thought it was pretty much accepted that regs/good players playing against each other in a raked game was doing nothing but shoving money down the hole.

Anybody who doesn't already understand that has some big holes in their game.

Saying that a lot of players have egos thinking they have much bigger edges vs other regs because they spot small leaks.
What their own ego doesn't realize is they also have small leaks which basically zeros out their edge.

In some cases it may make sense to play slightly -EV games if there is an opportunity for VIP players to join.

IMHO playing skill in poker is somewhat overrated. If you play pretty well but can get into really great games you will make a fortune.
Even a player who would lose in a zoom pool would do great.

The number one skill with poker is game selection.

That's why professional poker is a good part time gig but a poor full time one.

D.

Funny when some guy thinks hes a master of statistics because he looked at some PrimeDope charts even though he wouldnt be able to intelligently describe what a standard deviation is. Say what you want about Mason but when he talks about the statistics of poker you should definitely listen. The dude is a legend of poker related maths.

Of course it exists. It's just that it only exists retrospectively.

This is how I interpret the chart.

Let’s say live play 25 hands an hour, 30 hours a week = 39,000 hands a year.

100,000 hands = 2.56 years

6.5 million hands = 166 years

Playing 1/2 NL the bots can win/lose 9.3bb/100 = $18,600 over 100k hands and +/- $11,050 at 6.5 million hands.

If I’m calculating this correctly, I am amazed the +/- doesn’t approach zero even at 6.5 million hands.

Others (most?) seems to think this is no surprise.

Doesn’t this mean one has to have a better than 9.33 bb/100 win rate to be assured 1) will make money over 2.56 years and 2) if one makes money only the $$ over $18,600 is for certain due to winning play?

I’m not getting how win rates can ever be determined vis a vis how long it takes for cards to break even.

I’ll have to pick up a copy of Mason’s book (he will have sold at least one book here Doo Doo) to maybe understand better. Too bad it’s not available kindle version.

Obviously a winning player is more likely to be ahead after 100 hours than 4 hours. It's still a small statistical sample though. 1000 hours of live play is still a relatively small sample. I respect your contributions to game theory, and I understand you're allowed to promote your book, but let's at least be honest with the public and not set up false expectations.

Also 10 BB/100 winrate is not a small win rate in today's games. As the simulation shows a player with this relatively large win rate is still only around 70% likely to be above break even over 100 hours of live play.

Are you disputing this?

70% is almost as likely as winning when you get it all in one time preflop with AK vs AQ.

Does a person who takes a lesson with you recieve copies of the MDA reports themselves, or are they just explained summaries of it and lines to use?

Here's the kindle:

https://www.amazon.com/Gambling-Theo...s%2C143&sr=1-2

Mason

Cool thread! Some takeaways for me are:

1) Poker variance calculators way underestimate the extent that we can get screwed by variance unless the sample size is impossibly large... 5+ million. I have known this for about 15 years, but I don't fully understand why this happens. Pokerdope actually used to have a disclaimer saying as much.

2) Most pro poker players are on heaters. I have always felt that most online pros have winrates in the 0-3 BB/100 range, but that variance leads many to believe that some of these pros have 6-8 BB/100 winrates. Imagine how many times the next Linus has quit poker he because ran at -1 BB/100 instead of his true winrate of 5+ BB/100 over 200k hands!

3) Live pros who are playing in deep-stacked straddlefests with bomb pots need to understand that they can run bad for years.

4) It's important to understand that both of the following statements can be true at the same time: Matt Marinelli is one of the best online NL players in the USA. Matt Marinelli is one of the luckiest online NL players in the USA.

5) As DDP implied in his OP, it's extremely important to learn how to figure out which players know what they are talking about and which ones don't. Graphs mean very little.

It depends on what your win rate and standard deviation are. Assuming you play well, in today's small stakes live games it can be plenty to show certain things.

It depends on the game. In the live small stakes games in Las Vegas that I'm familiar with this would be only a modest win rate.

Mason