[AleoMagus]

I posted a related thread on the probability forum lately and while working throught the numbers, have been surprised. You really do need to play a lot of sngs to have any idea at all with accuracy.

I was ready, in fact, to say that the whole mess was somewhat meaningless because by the time you had aquired a big enough sample, too much could have changed to make the initial results in the series very relevant anymore (especially to the developing player).

This Quasi-Markhov Chain data idea seems to make allowances for this but I still find myself wondering if a player could take it too serious. Over 1200 tournaments, in my experience, positive progression is not gradual, but often marked by 'sudden boosts' which can be tied to identifiable real world experiences. I am talking about things like reading TPFAP or some other book, increasing amount of play, finding a friend to discuss poker with, finding 2+2 boards, the week you read all of Fossilmans posts, etc...

Perhaps (and I don't really know much about stats), the Quasi-Markhov chain data is exactly designed to take this into account, but I'd have a hard time taking my first 300 tourneys where I played over 50 starting hands in the first two rounds and combining it with my last 300, where I played barely 25. Add to this the fact that the first 300 had a ROI significantly less, and I'd be inclined to look past the first 300 altogether.

For an experienced player who plays 300 tourneys each month, it might become entirely feasible to get a fairly static sample of 1200+ tourneys, but for a developing casual player who might only play that many in a year, I'm not so sure.

At any rate, I probably need to know a bit more to say anything meaningful here about stats. Looks like another afternoon af math reading - Now how is Quasi-Markhov spelled again? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Regards,
Brad S