Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjonius
100 occurrences is far to small a sample size to expect regression will be close to the mean every time. So it's not going to be especially unusual to see 30 or 40 when the expected value is 35. However, if you increase the sample size to say 100,000 the likelihood of seeing 30,000 or 35,000 vs the expectation of 35,000 declines significantly.
That said, there's still a hole in the initial assumption regardless who said it since there's no consideration given to skill. Over the long run, better players will win more money and lose less with the same distribution of hand held.
|
Yes 100 was just an example you can take a space of 1000 or 10000, but the question is that you are taking as per individual and I am saying it is on 35% on all people. So some higher and some lower, you see the difference?
The skill part I will answer on below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzipher
This is the key question, and the answer is definitively NO.
You can find a person that hit 60% of the times and another one that hit only 10%, but you can find that in a low sample of hands.
The more hands you take, the more close to the 35% everybody will be, and with enough hands is almost impossible to find a person close to 60% of hits.
That's why not.  |
Uhh not quite, especially that you say "almost impossible" meanining that inside you, your not even sure. But make it simple on you. A guy plays 10,000 hands 5000 when he is 20 and another 5000 when he is 21. Why cant he be a 60 on one year a 10 on the other to level on 35? Where is the problem? I mean 4 billion people on the planet and we are almost all bound by statistics, but then again where do your heros come from? Anomalies no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NUCKING_FUTS_4
I agree that over a great enough sample of hands the deviation from the norm (odds) will be less.
But i don't agree that luck wins over skill. I like it that your bud made such a beginning to his poker career, how many other lucky players were there at the final table/ tournament?.. I would say that there were more skilled players and I bet they took as much collectively as did the lucky players if not more.
Whilst the hand will/won't hit a percentage of times, this isn't the important part. How much you make when it hits and how much it looses when it doesn't is what matters.
Making bets above the expected value of the hand and more frequently than the odds suggest against your opponents hands is where you want to be. Thats winning poker and it puts LUCK to shame which is for those that wish to have their fate decided by something outside of themselves. |
The deviation will be less for a collective amount of people and not neccessarily for one person.
My bud came out 2nd, and yes somebody got paid more than him.
And yes we want to make bets in the +ev and hope things work out, but what if they dont? I mean who is there to say yes? for example lets take you because you have the poker tracker (which I will get). On all the hands that you have played, only you, how many flushes and str8s have you hit, how many A or Ks have you hit with AK, and how many sets have you made on the flop? Have you met the numbers?
--------------------------------------------
Now for the trick question. Assume we all agree on the point that each individual playing 10,000 hands will get his flush 35% of the time and that is set as a rule on the side.
The guy plays tournaments, he makes his flushs on small blinds (beginning of the tournament) and looses them at the end on big blinds, how can this guy be not one of the unlucky? Or is making a flush now a function of time and position in the tournament?
See it happens with us alot of times, we get AA and then KK on 10/20 and we say damn its gonna be along time before we see those again. Big blinds come and you all in with some silly hand like A 4 because ur stack is low and you get the short end of the stick against a KK or JJ. Unlucky and unskilled? or just unlucky?