What Additional/Different Data Format Would You Find Usefull?

[VivaLaViking]

After considering your comments, here is some new data in a slightly different format. As a note, the data at the bottom (A K Q . . .) is in a list control and by clicking the column heading you may sort ascending or descending all columns, also it is actually neatly formatted. Before I move on to the next block I want to be sure this is completed correctly. I will get all contributors an advance Beta copy of the software.

N Hands 12365

Theoretical Pairs 727.
Observed Pairs 781 +7.37%
Mean Theoretical Pairs 55.9

Set Trials (Flops Holding Pair) 745
Theoretical Sets Flopped 80.2
Observed Sets Flopped 83 +3.39%
Mean Theoretical Sets 6.17

Pair Count Win% Sets Expected
A 57 40.3 6 6.14
K 60 40.0 4 6.46
J 65 36.9 5 7.00
Q 69 34.7 3 7.43
9 77 31.1 13 8.29
6 58 22.4 7 6.25
8 65 18.4 6 7.00
T 53 16.9 6 5.71
7 57 14.0 7 6.14
4 59 10.1 6 6.35
5 56 8.92 11 6.03
2 50 6.00 3 5.38
3 55 5.45 6 5.92

TY

[LetYouDown]

I'm still trying to figure out what you're trying to prove or disprove here. Is this just a piece of simple math software for people that want to see how many sets they've been "screwed out of"?

[VivaLaViking]

No, much more of the software is completed and I'm just trying to "put to bed" the pair data on the flop before I go to Pair data on the turn. As well as summarizing the hand data you have received between any specified starting and stopping date/time it has given me some insight already. Remember that we are dealing with computer generated random numbers and ALL PRGs are idiosyncratic. Look at the 9's and 5's pair data. In a raised pot I would normally fold the 5's but this data indicates I might want to see a flop for the 5's. Regardless, I want to know what other data you would find useful for pair data on the flop. You have no idea how much I appreciate you playing "The Devils Advocate" and thanks.

[LetYouDown]

[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea how much I appreciate you playing "The Devils Advocate" and thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Glad to oblige. I will say that playing your hand (in your example 5-5) any differently than you normally would because of minor statiscal anomalies is pretty absurd.

If you're looking to find some kind of tendency within their RNG, I'd say you're completely wasting your time. Don't you think someone would have found it by now?

[VivaLaViking]

I don't know the answer to that question but I must satisfy myself either way 'cause that's the kind of guy I am. lol

ScreenShotsOfSoftware (http://users.rcn.com/kimball2)

[Orpheus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're looking to find some kind of tendency within their RNG, I'd say you're completely wasting your time. Don't you think someone would have found it by now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who says they haven't -- and aren't making money on it?

Most guys who advertise finding such anomalies are either blowing hot air with a tiny sample size, or after your wallet. I'd expect most folks who undertake serious analysis to keep their findings mum. They respect the value of their own work. Why give away an edge to people who otherwise couldn't be bothered, or make it obsolete by forcing a fix?

If you mean the professional analyses for RNG certification, well, it's been a long time since I read one, but I don't recall that they published their standard for "good enough". Certainly, flaws have slipped by before.

I don't mean to seriously argue that analysis will uncover playable edges. I'm just a guy like VLV who enjoys mathematical explorations for their own sake, and wanted to voice some support. Writing software like this suggests that the OP is planning to accumulate a truly adequate sample size -- unlike the many posters who start with an assumption of the adequacy (or "near adequacy", whatever that is) of whatever data they already have.

For some people, math is never a waste of time.

[VivaLaViking]

"A long time ago, never mind how long ago precisely" (Melville) I started in computers. One of the absolute concensus was the difficulty of generating random numbers. I don't know if their are anomolies or not but I am trying to accomplish writing a free software program for a serious mathematical analysis of your hand history files and my hope is that if enough people have this tool that the poker sites will know that they had better "tow the line" and the individuals can determine the propriety of their preferred site. Thank you.

[LetYouDown]

I'm not saying that math is a waste of time at all...any math. It's time better spent than a million other daily activities, that's for certain. What I'm saying is, and I respect your argument about keeping it quiet...we'd have heard something. I seriously doubt that someone would be able to keep that quiet for any length of time. Obviously the # of trials would have to be absurdly high to notice any exploitable anomalies, which is essentially what I was critiquing.

I don't have faith in verification "companies". I have faith that enough posts would have popped up saying "I've played 5,000,000 hands and PT says I've hit sets with 5-5 20 times the number of times I've hit sets with K-K". My numbers are obviously an extreme exaggeration.

[VivaLaViking]

Well, lets see what we can do and if it concludes I've wasted my time, it won't be the first time. When the statstics are done I will continue with generating notes on players. What percentage of hands they play, how often they raise with nothing. But let's try.