10-21-2001, 04:27 AM
Okay, threads have included references to varying combinations of (a) probability calculations, (b) experience-based estimates, (c) Turbo Hold'em (TTH) sims, (d) independent simulators, and (e) online poker data. In places these have been lumped together. In addition, they have been cited without any accompanying information to allow readers to understand the methods used. But once you get beyond a casual tossing out of estimates, in informal forum exchanges, and move into more serious attempts to debate and sort out the truth, doesn't it become clear that these items need to clearly and separately identified and elucidated? Otherwise, the threads become a not quite chaotic free-for-all. A number of points and suggestions come to mind:
(1) Please make clear what source of information you're talking about. Say, "My results from my online data are.... My sim results from TTH are...." Seeing the differences would be interesting, and the online results should be taken more seriously, or should at least be less open to interpretation.
(2) Obviously everyone agrees TTH has limitations and weaknesses. But currently only those who are both very poker-savvy and intimately familiar with TTH (or who are in close touch with those who are) can hope to know the precise nature of those limitations. Unless everyone's satisfied with these free-for-alls, if posters are going to continue to cite it to support their assertions, there is a need for someone who really knows the software (and poker) to publish a thorough list of its known limitations. Without such a list, serious attempts to present TTH sim results will inevitably be met with confusion and skepticism concerning TTH's ability to produce worthwhile data. With such a list, readers who don't use TTH should be able to engage in intelligent interpretation of its results. Any well informed accompanying discussion of the limitations, and thoughts about their effects, would be helpful too.
(3) If a poster bases comments on findings from an independent simulator, his own creation for example, he ought to say so (as Erin did). Otherwise, there will just be more confusion. Results from other simulators really ought to include at least a brief description of the nature and limitations of that simulator.
(4) Simulation results should include mention of the number of hands simulated.
(5) When online data are cited it's obviously just as important to state the sample size of the hand in question. Readers can estimate it if you provide the size of your total online data sample, but please just state it.
(6) It sure helps when posters try to accomplish something with regard to furthering knowledge, rather than focusing on trying to win a debate. Efforts at tact and civility help in that regard.
(7) I realize some do not want to reveal some of their information and research results. IMO, saying nothing may often be better than tossing out curiously incomplete bits of information which serve to challenge and argue, but which obviously cry out for elaboration and clarification.
(1) Please make clear what source of information you're talking about. Say, "My results from my online data are.... My sim results from TTH are...." Seeing the differences would be interesting, and the online results should be taken more seriously, or should at least be less open to interpretation.
(2) Obviously everyone agrees TTH has limitations and weaknesses. But currently only those who are both very poker-savvy and intimately familiar with TTH (or who are in close touch with those who are) can hope to know the precise nature of those limitations. Unless everyone's satisfied with these free-for-alls, if posters are going to continue to cite it to support their assertions, there is a need for someone who really knows the software (and poker) to publish a thorough list of its known limitations. Without such a list, serious attempts to present TTH sim results will inevitably be met with confusion and skepticism concerning TTH's ability to produce worthwhile data. With such a list, readers who don't use TTH should be able to engage in intelligent interpretation of its results. Any well informed accompanying discussion of the limitations, and thoughts about their effects, would be helpful too.
(3) If a poster bases comments on findings from an independent simulator, his own creation for example, he ought to say so (as Erin did). Otherwise, there will just be more confusion. Results from other simulators really ought to include at least a brief description of the nature and limitations of that simulator.
(4) Simulation results should include mention of the number of hands simulated.
(5) When online data are cited it's obviously just as important to state the sample size of the hand in question. Readers can estimate it if you provide the size of your total online data sample, but please just state it.
(6) It sure helps when posters try to accomplish something with regard to furthering knowledge, rather than focusing on trying to win a debate. Efforts at tact and civility help in that regard.
(7) I realize some do not want to reveal some of their information and research results. IMO, saying nothing may often be better than tossing out curiously incomplete bits of information which serve to challenge and argue, but which obviously cry out for elaboration and clarification.