Is this statistically significant? - Page 2 - Poker Beats Brags and Variance

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion Poker Beats, Brags, and Variance

Is this statistically significant?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

1 2

Page 2 of 2

1 2

09-05-2009 , 09:29 PM

#26

Ratsoo48

centurion

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 120

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abhorson

I'm thinking that this is too small a sample to really get an idea, but I'm not sure. If it is, then how many would I need for a reasonable sample?

.

Have a look at http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm it gives you an idea of sample sizes.

Quote

09-06-2009 , 12:23 AM

#27

Kittens

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abhorson

In about 9500 hands, I've had about 600 pocket pairs but am hitting a set around one time in 14 when (IIRC) odds are one in 7.5.

Almost certainly, you aren't counting the times that you got dealt a pair but never saw the flop. Someone posted this same thing a couple of days ago in the Probability forum, turned out that he only saw the flop about 2/3 of the time when he got dealt a pair.

Quote

09-06-2009 , 12:53 AM

#28

DRybes

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 4,039

I just went through a 49k hand sample of 6max cash for you

Dealt PP 2947 times (HMM 5x more than your value of 600)
Saw flop with PP 1946 (the part where you failed)
Flopped set 217 times (standard)

Ratio: 1 in 8.97, about 5% less likely than expected

Conclusion: Find and add filter for saw flop = true.

Quote

09-06-2009 , 05:30 AM

#29

Oct0puz

adept

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 841

Quote:

Originally Posted by pompeypoker

i'm suprised nobody noticed this is clearly wrong, this if for flopping 14 (or less) sets out of 600 times, OP claimed he flopped a set 1 out 14 times, so a bit over 40 times out of the 600.

Sorry I just wrote wrong, but the answer and formula are correct, which is for flopping 43 sets or less.

Quote

09-06-2009 , 07:16 AM

#30

lnternet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 12,224

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLBorloo

what is oddly significant is that an OP with such stupid questions did not go broke in 10k hands, which is plenty of time when your IQ is that low.

this

Quote

09-06-2009 , 07:34 AM

#31

burden2

banned

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 969

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc89

The sample size isn't really an issue. If Oct0puz's math is right (which I think it is) then the odds of you running this bad or worse over the given sample is .0175%, or about 5500:1. It's certainly possible that you are just running this bad.

5714 to 1 more exactly. I think that qualifies as significant. But then again it's about the same odds of Jamie Gold winning the main event and that happened.

Quote

09-06-2009 , 04:19 PM

#32

Kittens

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 6,016

All the people saying this sample size is too small, don't have a clue

10k hands is too small for determining your BB/100 winrate.. but it's plenty for checking if you flopped a set enough

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last