Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

I say we get to the bottom of this and really try to figure out how many games get into the long run. There is a way to figure this out. Let's say for the sake of argument that the average vig for sngs is 10%. So all players on average have a -10% ROI. Now, someone who knows how to calculate standard deviation, figure this out:

After how many sngs would being within let's say -8 to -10% happen 99.999% of the time?

After how many sngs would being within -20 to 0% happen 99.9999% of the time?

Let's say it was 2,000. And after 2,000 sngs you were showing a ROI of 15%. This is probably a good indicator that you are a winning player because statistically, you should overwhelmingly be between -20% and break even, so unless you're an incredible statistical anomaly, you are probably a winning player.

You could calculate the SD a different way. By entering your number of sngs and your ROI, you can calculate within 1, 2, and 3 standard deviations (which I think are 66, 95, and 99.9 percent respectively, yes?) the range in which your ROI probably is.

Would someone who knows more about standard deviation care to delve into this a little deeper?

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say we get to the bottom of this and really try to figure out how many games get into the long run. There is a way to figure this out. Let's say for the sake of argument that the average vig for sngs is 10%. So all players on average have a -10% ROI. Now, someone who knows how to calculate standard deviation, figure this out:

After how many sngs would being within let's say -8 to -10% happen 99.999% of the time?

After how many sngs would being within -20 to 0% happen 99.9999% of the time?

Let's say it was 2,000. And after 2,000 sngs you were showing a ROI of 15%. This is probably a good indicator that you are a winning player because statistically, you should overwhelmingly be between -20% and break even, so unless you're an incredible statistical anomaly, you are probably a winning player.

You could calculate the SD a different way. By entering your number of sngs and your ROI, you can calculate within 1, 2, and 3 standard deviations (which I think are 66, 95, and 99.9 percent respectively, yes?) the range in which your ROI probably is.

Would someone who knows more about standard deviation care to delve into this a little deeper?

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been done, and after a certain number of SnGs you can certainly know the odds that you are a winning player. Of course, all math needs assumptions, and to find your win rate (or evidence that you're really a winning player) you would have to assume that the skill level of you and of the average opponent has not changed since you started playing. Considering the skill level of the average opponent changes based on what time of the day you play, this would be a very big assumption.

Basically, you never know your win rate, you have to assume it. Then again, it doesn't really matter what your exact win rate is, unless you feel like strutting it all over the forum in a pair of chapps.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Could you explain to me how to figure it out? Like if my ROI is 15% after 2,000 then what are the odds that my true ROI is between 14-16%? What are the odds that I might still be a losing player?

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say we get to the bottom of this and really try to figure out how many games get into the long run. There is a way to figure this out. Let's say for the sake of argument that the average vig for sngs is 10%. So all players on average have a -10% ROI. Now, someone who knows how to calculate standard deviation, figure this out:

After how many sngs would being within let's say -8 to -10% happen 99.999% of the time?

After how many sngs would being within -20 to 0% happen 99.9999% of the time?

Let's say it was 2,000. And after 2,000 sngs you were showing a ROI of 15%. This is probably a good indicator that you are a winning player because statistically, you should overwhelmingly be between -20% and break even, so unless you're an incredible statistical anomaly, you are probably a winning player.

You could calculate the SD a different way. By entering your number of sngs and your ROI, you can calculate within 1, 2, and 3 standard deviations (which I think are 66, 95, and 99.9 percent respectively, yes?) the range in which your ROI probably is.

Would someone who knows more about standard deviation care to delve into this a little deeper?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was discussed and "solved" many times in the past, but it is still not relevant to the points I've made. I'm talking about a completely different kind of problem, which has to do with the information you gain from OTHER players/posters and their results, and how biased it is - i.e, what defines your particular sample.

Obviously, information coming from ONE person and that's it (in your particular case - this person is "you", but it doesn't matter for this discussion) is a very small indication of anything, since it's impossible to determine one's level of "luckiness" (that is - how "normal" are one's results) without a reference or comparison to a sample of any kind. There is no meaning to standard deviation in a vacuum, unless you _assume_ something about what should be normal results (or "believe" in something to begin with), and that's the theoretic problem you have here, or the logical difficulty.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

I thought that the point of standard deviation WAS to determine your "luckiness" versus your "skills", essentially, based on results, what are the odds that it is a good or bad swing and what are the odds that it is mathematically where it should be.

We can do it for other subjective gambling endeavors such as a card counter in blackjack, why not something with a set buyin such as a SNG? It seems like we should be able to. Educate me on the subject, I'm very interested. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

The look at my dick posts are usually good for a laugh but they are getting old.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to know if you are any good, ask a long term winner to watch some of your HHs.

If you want to know what's sustainable, ask a long term winner what their ROI/ITM at a certain level has been. (Or search one of the 9384268268726127967234 posts on the topic.)

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

thx for this post irie. it made me look at how many sngs i've played.

i never knew the total b4 because databases being full, thus needing to create a new one. and also new accts and user names, but got errors when i tried to alias them to another.

so basically i had a few separate datasets.

wow.. i've played 4000 50+5's. and the roi makes my e-penis go bong! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

but you dont want me looking at your HH. here's a sample of my interpretations: Karak567 HH Thread

thx again for posting this Irie. now to get a cart to wheel around my e-penis [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since you are replying to my post you must be talking about strippers.

How many strippers did your wife have to make out with before you knew it is sustainable?

[/ QUOTE ]

READ THE [censored] FAQ!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice Curtains...

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
if someone achieves something they are proud of, and post hopeing for a pat on the back and words of encouragement...i have no problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine if every registered user of 2+2 played a set of 500 SNGs.


[/ QUOTE ]

what was this number (i.e. how many registered users are there on 2+2)?

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Go to the "main index" and scroll all the way down.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Irie,

2 questions. 1: How did you estimate the variability in your simulations? Your answer will depend on the noise.
2: What initial sample size did you start with to come up with the result of 3700? I can easily write an SPLUS script to validate your results.

Indy

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

I've found that you can do similar experiments with rvg72's ROI simulator.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that the point of standard deviation WAS to determine your "luckiness" versus your "skills", essentially, based on results, what are the odds that it is a good or bad swing and what are the odds that it is mathematically where it should be.

We can do it for other subjective gambling endeavors such as a card counter in blackjack, why not something with a set buyin such as a SNG? It seems like we should be able to. Educate me on the subject, I'm very interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can look at your own post above and see why there's a deeper problem here (It touches on one of the most debateable issues in stats/probabilities at large, btw):

You say:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a way to figure this out. Let's say for the sake of argument that the average vig for sngs is 10%. So all players on average have a -10% ROI. Now, someone who knows how to calculate standard deviation, figure this out:

After how many sngs would being within let's say -8 to -10% happen 99.999% of the time?

After how many sngs would being within -20 to 0% happen 99.9999% of the time?

Let's say it was 2,000. And after 2,000 sngs you were showing a ROI of 15%. This is probably a good indicator that you are a winning player because statistically, you should overwhelmingly be between -20% and break even, so unless you're an incredible statistical anomaly, you are probably a winning player.


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose you play a game that is in fact equivalent to flipping a non-biased coin, but you don't know that. It costs you $10 to play a game, paying 1:1. You play, say, 1000 games. Now suppose you are a "significant" winning player: you have 550 wins and 450 loses, for a $100 net win, which is basically 1% ROI. Surely according to a normal calculation with regard to how "confident" you can be about being a "winning player", you'll get some result that will be more in the direction of being a winner than a loser - but it won't make any sense, since the game is 0EV by defintion, only you don't know that, and was simply lucky.

More extreme example: suppose you play 1000 of these games, and win 650. This is, by definition, possible. You were very lucky. This has nothing to do with being a "winning player", of course. However, if you use some assumption (=belief) about this game being "beatable" in some way, then you are clearly a "winning player", a "good player", which is absurd.

Obviously, you can run hot enough to have 1000 straight wins. This is extremely improbable, but still, the fact that it's very improbable has nothing to do with what you might call the "actual" result of having 1000 straight wins, which by itself has _the same probability as any other *specific* result with a *specific sequence*_ in this game, and is just as unprobable, or probable. Now if you had such a run, you would believe with an extremely high level of confidence that you are a "winning player" in this game, a real master, but you'll be completely wrong, of course.

In fact, your mistake about your "true" ROI and confidence about being a "winning/losing" player, will grow as you'll be running hotter/colder.

In other words: according to a different (but legitimate) assumption with regard to your results, it is possible to interpret them as being simply nothing more than an indication for how lucky you were running, and nothing else. That is - getting to ANY conclusion about your confidence with regard to any "true ROI" of any kind, is impossible and absurd, according to this.

You'll have the same problem, theoretically, no matter how big is your sample, as long as it isn't "infinite".

Whenever you make any kind of calculation with regard to your confidence of being a winner, you are using some "hidden assumption/s" about the game you're playing. The results of the calculation you make _can not_ prove this assumption, however, many many people seem to be missing this point, by trying to do exactly that: using the results to prove the assumption.

....

This discussion is getting very theoretical, and might seem even absurd to some (although it isn't absurd at all!), but since this whole thread started with a theoretical notion, I think there's place for a somewhat different point of view as well.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
Go to the "main index" and scroll all the way down.

[/ QUOTE ]

thx

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
Irie,

2 questions. 1: How did you estimate the variability in your simulations? Your answer will depend on the noise.
2: What initial sample size did you start with to come up with the result of 3700? I can easily write an SPLUS script to validate your results.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

(I ran the simulation for him) I assigned a 10% chance each to coming in first, second, or third and used the random number generator from java.util. For each of 41,000 virtual players, it simulated 500 STT's (deduct buy in from running total, roll the dice, add any money won to running total).

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

My only comment is that when you do these analyses, you know how likely certain things are, and that those liklihoods are always strictly less than 1. A lot of people consider something like 95% to be 100%, but of course they are wrong (which is I think the essence of what you were trying to say). (Also, a lot of people don't even bother to do the statistics).

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Regardless of the #s, Irie makes a valid point. Its just story-telling at 500 SNGs. We don't need interim results unless the individual has prospectively defined success and futility stopping boundries for quitting poker.

Indy

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
My only comment is that when you do these analyses, you know how likely certain things are, and that liklihoos is always strictly less than 1. A lot of people consider thing like 95% to be 100%, but of course they are wrong (which is I think the essence of what you were trying to say). (Also, a lot of people don't even bother to do the statistics).

[/ QUOTE ]

True, and I'd like to add that in some cases and according to some different assumptions, even this "95%" figure is "in fact" lower or much lower, and alternatively, low figures "should be" higher.

I'm using all those "" "" because this is a tricky subject, as any issue that has to do with "confidence" and "levels of belief".

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

One more reply to this:

This gets at the heart of another big misconception in the world: that science proves things. A lot of people are ignorant that science consists of theories which are supported (or not) by experiments. There is no "LAW of Gravity," for instance, it is the "Theory of Gravity," which can (and has been to some extent) invalidated. (Clarification: Newtonian Gravity does not explain some observations. This resulted in the relativity theories. Newtonian gravity is a very good approximation in most of the cases humans have to deal with, but not entirely accurate. Relavativity could likewise be wrong in ways we have yet to discover.)

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]


I'm using all those "" "" because this is a tricky subject, as any issue that has to do with "confidence" and "levels of belief".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, statistics can get really hairy and assumptions have huge impacts. Also, when hypothesis testing one can get different results depending on which null hypothesis is chosen. Lies, damn lies, and statistics indeed!

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of the #s, Irie makes a valid point. Its just story-telling at 500 SNGs. We don't need interim results unless the individual has prospectively defined success and futility stopping boundries for quitting poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say this, you just need to realize that ANY specific number of results (i.e, sample size), particularly one that is achievable by a human-being, is no more than "interim results" in the pure sense. Therefore, according to your own logic, you shouldn't be interested in any kind of results posted, no matter how relatively big is the sample size, and who is the poster.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

When I say interim I mean part of the way to the necessary sample size for showing such a result with reasonable power. True, all data is "interim" data if you consider all data that could be collected but this isn't what I meant.

Indy

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
This gets at the heart of another big misconception in the world: that science proves things. A lot of people are ignorant that science consists of theories which are supported (or not) by experiments. There is no "LAW of Gravity," for instance, it is the "Theory of Gravity," which can (and has been to some extent) invalidated. (Clarification: Newtonian Gravity does not explain some observations. This resulted in the relativity theories. Newtonian gravity is a very good approximation in most of the cases humans have to deal with, but not entirely accurate. Relavativity could likewise be wrong in ways we have yet to discover.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points and analogy.

[ QUOTE ]
Relavativity could likewise be wrong in ways we have yet to discover

[/ QUOTE ]

You probably know that, but there are aspects of quantum mechanics that completely contradict basic assumptions of "relativity", and that's why in some senses relativity was already "discovered" to be wrong, or at least not consistent with a different and very valid and successful theory. Einstein was very unhappy about it too, although he had a big part in the emergence of the qunatum theory as well.

Yes, I think it's about time we discuss these things here!

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
You probably know that, but there are aspects of quantum mechanics that completely contradict basic assumptions of "relativity", and that's why in some senses relativity was already "discovered" to be wrong, or at least not consistent with a different and very valid and successful theory. Einstein was very unhappy about it too, although he had a big part in the emergence of the qunatum theory as well.

Yes, I think it's about time we discuss these things here!

[/ QUOTE ]

I find these things extremely interesting. If only I were smart [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

We know God doesn't play dice, but does he play poker?

Oh yeah, Stanzee!

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Hey stupidsucker, if you really find these things interesting you can find quite a lot of popular good science/physics books directed at people who don't have any advanced educations at these matters. It is indeed interesting and you don't need a lot of math, or to be exceptionally smart, IMO, in order to understand at least some of the ideas/theories.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

As someone once wrote somewhere:

God DOES play dice, but they're loaded, so it's OK.

In other words:

God does play poker, but only on-line which is obviously completely rigged so Einstein shouldn't be bothered. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

I think this is all over my head but i will give some thoughts. I don't believe you can ever have a definitive sample size to know your true ROI. It will get closer and closer to a true number the more you play but that number will have a margin of error. So to be a definitive sample size wouldn't you have to encountered every situation possible many times to get a true read of your play. I think this is impossible due to the fact of the variable the villian brings into the situation. I believe this creates so many variables and other factors that the it would be impossible to ever know your "true ROI".

Corey

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You probably know that, but there are aspects of quantum mechanics that completely contradict basic assumptions of "relativity", and that's why in some senses relativity was already "discovered" to be wrong, or at least not consistent with a different and very valid and successful theory. Einstein was very unhappy about it too, although he had a big part in the emergence of the qunatum theory as well.

Yes, I think it's about time we discuss these things here!

[/ QUOTE ]

I find these things extremely interesting. If only I were smart [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It all starts when a nulecule comes out of its shell.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Yes, it's impossible to know your true ROI, but as you said, you will tend to drift towards a number the more SNGs you play, and by using standard deviation, you can find out the chances of your actual ROI being within certain ranges.

For example, after 10,000 SNGs, if your ROI is 15%, there is probably a 99% chance that your ROI is between 13% and 17%. And after 20,000, there's probably a 99% chance that it's truly between 14.5% and 15.5%. I'm pulling these figures out of my ass, but someone who knows how to utilize standard deviation could figure out the actual numbers.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Does Forumbot count as a registered user in this simulation?

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
For example, after 10,000 SNGs, if your ROI is 15%, there is probably a 99% chance that your ROI is between 13% and 17%. And after 20,000, there's probably a 99% chance that it's truly between 14.5% and 15.5%. I'm pulling these figures out of my ass, but someone who knows how to utilize standard deviation could figure out the actual numbers.



[/ QUOTE ]

I guess a point/question is...can you even ever be sure of what the standard deviation is?

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Basically, you've got it. This often gets ignored in the statistical analysis, but one's "true" ROI is a dynamic quantity. Changing game conditions, mostly your skill relative to the opponent pool, prevent your ROI from converging. In that way, the 500-SNG posts are as valuable as that sort of information gets. "My ROI is 14.0% over 500 and that gives me a statistical winning confidence of 97.04%" is as good as you'll ever be able to do. Skill is much more likely to be a constant over 500 than over 5000.

The checkup posts can be valuable when, rather than "look at my epenis," they're a roadmap to beginning players. How did someone start with $250 and worked it up to 4-tabling the 55's? What happened along the way and what should I expect? The easiest way to show someone why 100 is an inadequete sample size is to post a graph of 500. Ditto for 500 and 3000, and 100 and 3000. It's like explaining to a middle-school boy why he's always pitching random tents (sample size 100 SNG's/a few games of Spin the Bottle) but can't get the girls to notice him. His high-school senior older brother (sample size 500 SNG's/lots of dry-humping and the one drunk prom date) has one opinion that's certainly more knowledgeable, but still distorted, and he really wants to share it because then his younger brother thinks he's cool. Dad (sample size 5000 SNG's and ...) knows the whole deal, but won't tell his sons because they have to figure it out for themselves.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, after 10,000 SNGs, if your ROI is 15%, there is probably a 99% chance that your ROI is between 13% and 17%. And after 20,000, there's probably a 99% chance that it's truly between 14.5% and 15.5%. I'm pulling these figures out of my ass, but someone who knows how to utilize standard deviation could figure out the actual numbers.



[/ QUOTE ]

I guess a point/question is...can you even ever be sure of what the standard deviation is?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an age-old fight here, but yes. The standard deviation is going to fall within a pretty tight tange for everyone. Irie made a post about 9 months ago about this.

Think of ROI as batting average. Players will have greater swings in their BA in April and May than they will in September, just because the effect of one at bat will have less impact the more at bats they have.

As an aside, in the ring game world, 10k hands is considered to be somewhat statistically signifcant. I now have over 500k hands in my PT database (50 10k samples) and I have had 5 10K losing periods, yet according to the "winning confidence" formula I am at 99.83%.

I also hope everyone appreciates the irony that (the one who I consider to be) The King of the E-Penis posts made an appearance in this thread.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also hope everyone appreciates the irony that (the one who I consider to be) The King of the E-Penis posts made an appearance in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slacker? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

[ QUOTE ]
The checkup posts can be valuable when, rather than "look at my epenis," they're a roadmap to beginning players. How did someone start with $250 and worked it up to 4-tabling the 55's? What happened along the way and what should I expect? The easiest way to show someone why 100 is an inadequete sample size is to post a graph of 500. Ditto for 500 and 3000, and 100 and 3000. It's like explaining to a middle-school boy why he's always pitching random tents (sample size 100 SNG's/a few games of Spin the Bottle) but can't get the girls to notice him. His high-school senior older brother (sample size 500 SNG's/lots of dry-humping and the one drunk prom date) has one opinion that's certainly more knowledgeable, but still distorted, and he really wants to share it because then his younger brother thinks he's cool. Dad (sample size 5000 SNG's and ...) knows the whole deal, but won't tell his sons because they have to figure it out for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody may ever question your genius.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

just 76 posts? there's got to be at least 150 sng hard ons out there that a cat couldn't even scratch----now that's crushing those morons.............b

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

Try the "Six Easy Pieces" by Richard Feynman and then try the "Six Not So Easy."

It's a shame he chose Physics and not Women. Maybe Skipperbob will write the babe versions.

Re: Why I hate \"Look at my 500-SNG penis\" posts
 

They are no worse than the myriad of NC posts that the cool people put on this forum. This is an excellent forum when there is actually strategy advice, but it's hard to feel too grateful when 7 of the first 10 threads on the first page have the abbreviation NC before it.

I made one of these posts when I hit 500 and I don't regret it at all. I was thrilled that I had accomplished so much. I really don't see what the big deal is.