oh and who could that guy near the top of 5/10 total winnings be!?

got me

Blackize, I don't find pleasure in the fact that you lost the hand. In fact, had the flop come AAA, I would've laughed just the same. I simply found humor in a situation at a poker table that you don't often see. That's all. I don't hate you, I don't have a vendetta against you, I don't wish terrible things on you. I simply find you as an annoyance as I find all ratholing shortstackers.

two quick questions for all you smart kids, questions that will unfortunately show you how little i know about math/poker/life

1) I wonder how regression to the mean doesn't prove the gamblers fallacy true? So you flip a coin ten times in a row calling heads, it is tails every time. I understand that the 11th flip is still 50/50, but doesnt regression to the mean state that over the long term, the previous balance of 10 tails will be negated by heads to a 50/50 balance? Entonces a run of heads is "due"? This makes my brain explode and im so bad at statistics and logic

2) how do rakeback sites make money, and who pays them and why?

ENLIGHTEN ME

edit - triple question waht the hell do you guys use all your points on? i already got 90 ipods and i have a big tv, i guess ill just save for thta ba ba ba ballin harley davidson lololol

1) You are reading way too far into this. The coin has no memory, so previous results have no effect on the current throw.

2) Rakeback sites make their money through low margins and high volume. A small, single digit percent of several thousand players' action = much more than 27% of any 1 player's action.

why is there a regression to the mean then? OMG HEAD ASPLODE

also, answer #2 fully? so full tilt pays rakebackcompany 28% of the rake i give them, and then they ship me 27% or something?

Because for every instance there is about a 50/50 chance of falling on either side. If you do it 50 septillion times, it would be 50/50, unless you're throwing it wrong or it's not balanced.


Yes

People informally use the phrase regression to the mean to mean things will even out. That's not quite it's definition though. It actually means if you witness an extreme set of results from an event with uniform distribution of outcomes, when you observe the same event in future you are likely, statistically speaking, to see a less extreme set of results.

Take your coin flipping example, you do sets of 10 flips at a time. The mean number of heads observed in each set of 10 flips will be 5. So, in set one you get 10 heads. This is an extreme result. Regression to the mean implies when you flip your next set you are more likely to see a result closer to the mean than what you have just observed. It's more likely that you will see 9 heads, or 8 heads, or 7 heads, or 6 heads, or 5 heads, etc than it is that you will see 10 heads. So, the chances are that your next result will be closer to the mean. That's regression to the mean.

Does that make sense?

If your expected earn at poker is $1/hand, you would expect to make $100k after 100k hands. After 10k hands you would expect to be up $10k. If you are actually down $5k after 10k hands then you would expect to have ~$85k after 100k hands (total). You future results should be closer to your mean win rate than the extreme results you've just had, but they won't necessarily even out your bad start. What's done is done.

You flip 10 heads in a row and keep on flipping. As you add more and more trials those 10 heads in a row become less and less significant.

Edit: A aberration like say 50 heads in a row becomes really statistically insignificant over a million trials. For example you flip 50 heads and then you flip 100k more times and it's perfectly even. You now have flipped 50.024...% heads. As you run more trials that number will continue approaching 50%.

Full Tilt pays the big affiliates something like 30-35%, I know it's in there somewhere because I've heard of under the table deals where people have gotten 30% RB on FTP. They then turn around and pay you 27% so they're pocketing something between 3% and 8% for many hundreds or thousands of players.

It's always more likely that you see 9 heads, 8 heads, 7heads, 6 heads, etc than 10 heads. It doesn't become anymore likely that you will see one of those results because the last trial was 10 heads. You have pretty much exactly described the gambler's fallacy.

Erm, no. I specifically used the word or that you have missed out. Here are some things to consider:

1. Which is closer to the mean 10 heads or 9 heads?
2. Which is closer to the mean 10 heads or 8 heads?
3. Which is closer to the mean 10 heads or 7 heads?
4. Which is closer to the mean 10 heads or 6 heads?
5. Which is closer to the mean 10 heads or 5 heads?
6. Is it more likely that you will flip 10 heads OR (9 heads or 8 heads or 7 heads or 6 heads or 5 heads)?

If you get an extreme result, chances are your next result will be closer to the mean. This is not gamblers fallacy.

Saying all those "ors" doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. By definition 10 heads will be a less common result than 9 heads, or 8 heads, etc

Gah it still sounds like you are saying, "Because you had an extreme result, you are more likely to achieve a less extreme result on the next trial." All you're really saying is that the expected result of a trial is the mean of all possible outcomes regardless of the outcome of the previous trial, but you're adding a qualifier that just confuses your point.

Yes that is exactly what I was saying. I was describing the phenomena known as "regression to the mean" which is what Skeety was asking about. The qualifier is necessary because without the qualifier you're not talking about regression to the mean, you are just talking about your a priori distribution.

I guess I just suck at explaining things. If you don't understand what previous results have to down with the phenomena known as regression to the mean, then Google it and hopefully you will find someone who can explain it better than me.

GUYS START DEEP TABLES FFS

He's not disagreeing with you. he's saying that your phrasing would seem to some (including skeety) to imply that your observation of an extreme case influences the behavior of the next sample. In fact, as it is clear you understand, it only influence the relative behavior of the sample.

I've always disliked the term observation in quantum mechanics as so many people interpret it as "looking at" and buy into all that hokey new age bs about how we can actualize our thoughts. You are using "get a result" in the Bayesian sense, which is correct, but similarly misleading.

TY for explaining so eloquently

goddamnit i suck at 10 tabling.

imo.

p.s. u blackize!

Hey guys, Kid_Forum berated me for this. I don't know why?

Full Tilt Poker $2/$4 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Hero (BTN): $739.40
Kid_Forum (SB): $730.15
d4donkey (BB): $487.40
cook316 (UTG): $631.00
MrBangBang45 (MP): $108.50
riverbaby11 (CO): $398.60

Pre Flop: Hero is BTN with J 9
3 folds, Hero raises to $12, Kid_Forum raises to $46, 1 fold, Hero calls $34

Flop: ($96.00) 6 6 3 (2 players)
Kid_Forum bets $60, Hero calls $60

Turn: ($216.00) 9 (2 players)
Kid_Forum bets $200, Hero calls $200

River: ($616.00) 5 (2 players)
Kid_Forum checks, Hero checks

Final Pot: $616.00
Hero shows Jc 9c (two pair, Nines and Sixes)
Kid_Forum shows Ah Th (a pair of Sixes)
Hero wins $613.00
(Rake: $3.00)


At least the table fish could console him though after I left:

big fishy: that as a pretty bad play
big fishy: was
Kid_Forum: obviously he knows that
Kid_Forum: my line 100% standard


I'm sure that 48/28s talk about standard lines all day.

I don't think I've ever said a bad thing about anyone. I don't chime in when everyone berates the shortstackers. I don't make fun of noluck. I don't talk about anyone. But I am going to say this right now. kenmrvegas can plsdiekthx.

Guy is the f'ing WORST and I cannot beat him out of a pot ever and it makes me seriously want to break everything on my desk.

That is all.

Mark

lady sharrow - plz stop coolering me u fckng nitbox

ugh.....pure degeneracy imo

Full Tilt Poker Game #7545344878: Table Vintners (6 max) - $2/$4 - No Limit Hold'em - 5:44:13 ET - 2008/08/07
Seat 1: HalvSame ($416.60), is sitting out
Seat 2: rynners ($2,253.10)
Seat 3: Feeling83 ($467.40)
Seat 4: AshleyWait ($523.60)
Seat 5: SilentAssassin3 ($944.70)
Seat 6: dahotshot ($400)
SilentAssassin3 posts the small blind of $2
dahotshot posts the big blind of $4
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to SilentAssassin3 [7c 9c]
rynners folds
Feeling83 folds
AshleyWait raises to $14
SilentAssassin3 raises to $52
dahotshot adds $4
dahotshot folds
AshleyWait calls $38
*** FLOP *** [Kc 8d Tc]
SilentAssassin3 has 15 seconds left to act
SilentAssassin3 bets $72
AshleyWait raises to $324
SilentAssassin3: GAMBOOL
SilentAssassin3 has 15 seconds left to act
SilentAssassin3 raises to $892.70, and is all in
AshleyWait calls $147.60, and is all in
SilentAssassin3 shows [7c 9c]
AshleyWait shows [8s 8h]
Uncalled bet of $421.10 returned to SilentAssassin3
*** TURN *** [Kc 8d Tc] [As]
*** RIVER *** [Kc 8d Tc As] [Kd]
SilentAssassin3: shi1t
SilentAssassin3 shows a pair of Kings
AshleyWait shows a full house, Eights full of Kings
AshleyWait wins the pot ($1,048.20) with a full house, Eights full of Kings
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $1,051.20 | Rake $3
Board: [Kc 8d Tc As Kd]
Seat 1: HalvSame is sitting out
Seat 2: rynners didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: Feeling83 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: AshleyWait (button) showed [8s 8h] and won ($1,048.20) with a full house, Eights full of Kings
Seat 5: SilentAssassin3 (small blind) showed [7c 9c] and lost with a pair of Kings
Seat 6: dahotshot (big blind) folded before the Flop

$2/$4 No Limit Holdem
5 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG beenie71 ($503.00)
CO rwass ($360.00)
BTN ArmandoGB ($80.00)
SB Hero ($779.70)
BB Transkilla ($843.20)

Pre-flop: ($6, 5 players) Hero is SB K A
2 folds, ArmandoGB raises to $8, Hero raises to $32, 1 fold, ArmandoGB goes all-in $80, Hero says "why so much?", Hero folds

Final Pot: $68

ArmandoGB wins $116 ( won +$36 )
Hero lost -$32.00

turtlelicious: oh
turtlelicious: &$@%
turtlelicious: well that wasnt what i meant to do
turtlelicious: i can't believe i just botched teh slowroll
turtlelicious: how ##$#ing stupid
turtlelicious: can i @%#@ing be

you changed your sn?

turtlelicious is my moms account

she showed me the hh and i was like i have to post this.

p.s. my mom tells me she pwns all of u

except dr. giggy and dontmugmeoff

they run too good