[A_PLUS]

Thanks for the feedback.

Trust me, I know that this isn't going to be much more than a stat paper where I get to quote sklansky, malmuth, and Brunson as my prime theorists.

I thought about the table image variable, but for the sample I have chosen (.10/.25 NL) I am fairly certain that no one picks up on table image unless it is out of control loose.

I agree about sample size, unfortunately, I am working mostly on an older computer system, querying the data from Access was cumbersome due to memory issues.

Realistically, I think that with the players in the sample, I may get some (albiet very minor pokerwise) significant results. Results that would be interesting, but not much else.

For instance, 3+ oponents with a rag flop, folding equity is apx. zero.

I have read the UA neural networking stuff. They do great work, but thats not really what I am looking to accomplish.
In theory with enough manpower and computer power, you could theoretically create an optimal poker bot (poki/loki).

My goal is to use statistically analysis to better employ a fundamental game.

Every good player makes probability estimates based on game variables, most of which are nearly impossible to model. But, you may be able to make more realistic estimates if you know the stats of the general case of your situation.

You may take one thing from an analysis like mine, for instance. "I know there is only a 20% chance based on my model that this bluff will work, am I confident that this situation is unique? It forces you to think deeper into the game"

This analysis isn't supposed to be special, just a start, in what I hope to be meaningful analysis down the road.