PDA

View Full Version : You Lucky **** [stats post]


1800GAMBLER
06-21-2005, 12:13 PM
Want to know how DERB does it? Want to know how that aggro seemingly idiot player beats 100/200? Or how a decent-good player went from killing 15/30 to 100/200 super fast ...... and then also finished 12th in a WSOP event? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

RUN WELL!

Lets take all the players ever on party poker, say 1 million, one of these players has to have the best run ever and 1 person has to have the worst run possible. Lets assume 7/10ths are losing players and they average to lose at 0.5bb/100h, how far ahead COULD Mr Losing Lucky be after 10k hands? 100k hands? 1/2 million hands?

Mr Lucky: Player Pool: 700k. Win rate: -0.5, Variance: 18. Hands: 100k

These stats i've made are what DERB may be like; If Mr Luckiest out of the 700k pool size played 30/60 he should be down $30k after 100k hands, <font color="red"> instead he'd be ahead $130k! </font>Lets make him a -0.1 loser, up $165k! Lets increase his variance to 20bb, up $170k, a difference of $200k! A free house because randomness has blessed him!

In a time scale this means the player who probably started with $10k and should have been bust, gone and not spoke about had he ran normal has now won the cost of a house. In 357 hours or 3 months (30 hour weeks) Mr Bless By Randomness has just won what it would take the average American 4.25 years to earn. 4 years!

FWIW, putting DERB back at -0.5, 18, luckiest in 70k players it would take 3 million hands for 'his luck' to finally not be lucky enough for him and for him to go back to break even. Just short of 7 years. In that time this losing player has gone on a roller coast ride, bought a house, forced to sell a house, married super models, probably gone balded, teached all his friends how to play poker like him, and probably published a book called 'Play Poker Like the Pros'. So is it really all that surprising that a player in this run gets a thread on 2+2?

Mr Unlucky: Player pool 300k Win rate: 2. Variance: 18. Hands 100k

This player spends 5 hours a day learning, spent $300 on books, spends hours everyday speaking about poker to friends, logs all his hands, uses PT, understands maths, hell he could even have a math degree, or a math, psychology, and chemistry and whatever degree, but none of that will stop him from <font color="red">losing $33k </font> over 100k hands if variance picks him as the unlucky one, <font color="red"> when he should be up $120k! </font> Here is the scary part, this streak of cards, the cards that make him the unluckiest person in 300k players could be ready to start, at the very moment you pick that seat, you could have just sat yourself down on this variance streak, instead of winning $120k over the next 12 weeks of full time play, you are going to lose $33k. Lose your first session. 2nd session, maybe break even, log a small win and think it's over. 5th session, gone again. Week in week out.

Mr Average in 100/200

Just moved up. He's been a winner at all his over stakes but he will probably break even in a tough high variance game now. WR: 0. Variance: 22. Hands: 100k. He's the luckiest guy in a 1000 player pool. Given these figures, <font color="red"> he wins $351k </font>. Nice run since he only just moved up.

Fun One: Best possible day for a 2+2er?

Say 50 2+2ers all play the 30/60 for 4 hours each day, 4 tables. That's 1120 hands in a day. What's the best 1120 hand streak that the luckiest will have? 50 players and 365 means 11k 2+2 poker days. Best will be top percentile in 11k. <font color="red">$14000 day </font>. So in a year we should be able to come back to this post and one of us here should have won $14k in a 1120 hand sample.

So far this has all seemed unrelated and like a math excercise, looking at what may happen in the future, but this is happening now. 1 player out of all the party poker accounts has been the luckiest over the last year. 1 player in the 100/200 has to be also. 1 player in the WSOP fields has to be. If he's a winning player anyway it will help increase his profits, and he'll go very very far but even a loser playing could go this far. So control your ability and let randomness do whatever it wants, the only promising part is even if you are the 1/1000 unlucky sole if you are always playing at 2bb/100h level with a 16bb/100h variance after 77500 hands you will be 1.5 big bet UP!

Lastly, here we taken a 1m pool size with medium variance. Imagine taking every blackjack player in the world? Or every player to ever play a casino game? Life has variance too, imagine the person who makes OK decisions for himself yet he is the luckiest person in a population of 6 billion?

Jason.

Nigel
06-21-2005, 12:40 PM
Fun post. I think Nate, if I remember correctly, covered the last one already.

Nigel

TiK
06-21-2005, 01:37 PM
mindboggling...utterly mindboggling...

I envy the lucky fuckers....

droidboy
06-21-2005, 01:41 PM
Thanks for the overblown illustration of sample bias. Now that that's not an issue though, maybe you'd like to address his actual results.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

1800GAMBLER
06-21-2005, 02:01 PM
His results fit perfectly into what is said above.

droidboy
06-21-2005, 02:31 PM
Clearly you are missing something.

Since what you said above addresses sample bias, and since there is no sample bias since the first observation, what you said has nothing to do with his results in the last 35 days.

So what are his results in the last 35 days, where he's not a player out of pool of players.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

sam h
06-21-2005, 03:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Since what you said above addresses sample bias, and since there is no sample bias since the first observation, what you said has nothing to do with his results in the last 35 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Gambler's post was about sampling bias so much as the inevitability and nature of outliers. I don't see why results over the last 35 days would affect Gambler's point, or necessarily shed a lot of light onto the larger question about DERB.

DMBFan23
06-21-2005, 03:24 PM
I think it was stheif, and yeah it ties in well together.

YoureToast
06-21-2005, 03:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
His results fit perfectly into what is said above.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're in denial.

mikelow
06-21-2005, 04:12 PM
200k won't even get a condo in Southern California.

So maybe even Chris Moneymaker was running well.

Is DERB losing now?

SomethingClever
06-21-2005, 05:16 PM
I'm pretty sure the luckiest player out of a million was at my 5/10 6-max table today. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

1800GAMBLER
06-21-2005, 05:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the luckiest player out of a million was at my 5/10 6-max table today. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

heh, i think you are referring to the player who plays under 1800GAMBLER, that's not me, i was L800GAMBLER because you couldn't use a number as the first character when i signed up.

SomethingClever
06-22-2005, 12:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the luckiest player out of a million was at my 5/10 6-max table today. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

heh, i think you are referring to the player who plays under 1800GAMBLER, that's not me, i was L800GAMBLER because you couldn't use a number as the first character when i signed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was just talking about some random fish that sucked out on the entire table about 7-8 times out of 10 with dominated hands. Incredible.

I have seen this 1800gambler fake, though. Weird that he's not you.

Justin A
06-22-2005, 01:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you are missing something.

Since what you said above addresses sample bias, and since there is no sample bias since the first observation, what you said has nothing to do with his results in the last 35 days.

So what are his results in the last 35 days, where he's not a player out of pool of players.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true. However, I don't know if he's talking about his results past the previous sample that brought about the big thread.

daryn
06-22-2005, 01:12 PM
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
I'm pretty sure the luckiest player out of a million was at my 5/10 6-max table today. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

heh, i think you are referring to the player who plays under 1800GAMBLER, that's not me, i was L800GAMBLER because you couldn't use a number as the first character when i signed up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was just talking about some random fish that sucked out on the entire table about 7-8 times out of 10 with dominated hands. Incredible.

I have seen this 1800gambler fake, though. Weird that he's not you.

[/ QUOTE ]

why would it be weird that a 1800gambler fake isn't him?

SomethingClever
06-22-2005, 03:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]


why would it be weird that a 1800gambler fake isn't him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Upon further reflection, I guess it's not that weird.

If his 2p2 name was something less common, say "ifckladyluck," then it would be more of a funny and weird coincidence.

bicyclekick
06-23-2005, 12:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Or how a decent-good player went from killing 15/30 to 100/200 super fast ...... and then also finished 12th in a WSOP event? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take 'decent-good' any day. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

felson
06-23-2005, 08:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Mr Lucky: Player Pool: 700k. Win rate: -0.5, Variance: 18. Hands: 100k

These stats i've made are what DERB may be like; If Mr Luckiest out of the 700k pool size played 30/60 he should be down $30k after 100k hands, <font color="red"> instead he'd be ahead $130k! </font>Lets make him a -0.1 loser, up $165k! Lets increase his variance to 20bb, up $170k, a difference of $200k! A free house because randomness has blessed him!

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, your point is well taken. But from what I've read about DERB, it sounds to me like his EV should be even less than -0.5. So he truly is a luckbox.

TStoneMBD
06-24-2005, 12:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
and probably published a book called 'Play Poker Like the Pros'.

[/ QUOTE ]

hilarious