Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

In early November I solicited volunteers for a meta-analysis of SNG results.

The volunteers would have to be winning players (criteria already explained) who would agree to intend to play at least 500 SNGs from 11/1 through 12/25.

I have 35 volunteers, and Christmas is approaching.

If you volunteered, please remember that I will need you to submit your data to me even if you lost, and even if you quit. This is an "intent-to-play" prospective analysis.

I will send out individual PMs to all volunteers before Christmas to explain how to submit your results.

If everybody keeps their word, we will have around 20,000 SNGs worth of data over less than 2 months to look at... which will be cool.

For those of you involved, I look forward to your cooperation. For everyone else, I will post the analysis the moment I receive all of the data and compile it.

Irieguy

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

I can definately drag your results down some if you want them, but I will have less than 500, somewhere around 400.

I'm not sure if i'm on the list, so it's your call.

My results where also heavily influenced by my playing like crap lately due largely to my meds going ineffective on me, and me putting off going to see the dam doc for a month too long (way, way, WAY too long)

Good news is the higher dose seems to be working, and I will be able to provide a negative sample if you want it, thus restoring your faith in people's willingness to embarrass themselves. True, that public service is not worth the $8000+ I'm down this month, but it's something...

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the same boat as a 10-tabler. Also eager to see the results. I think leaving out 55s and below 10-tabling may be an oversight, as after extensively doing both, playing 8 & playing 10 are not that different in the 55s (the overwhelming bulk of my play).

In the 109s, I think there is a difference between 8 & 10 though, but that's anecdotal experience and I don't think I will try 10 enough to find out.

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the same boat as a 10-tabler. Also eager to see the results. I think leaving out 55s and below 10-tabling may be an oversight, as after extensively doing both, playing 8 & playing 10 are not that different in the 55s (the overwhelming bulk of my play).

In the 109s, I think there is a difference between 8 & 10 though, but that's anecdotal experience and I don't think I will try 10 enough to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something?....Irieguy's request for participants made no mention of either of your criteria?

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the same boat as a 10-tabler. Also eager to see the results. I think leaving out 55s and below 10-tabling may be an oversight, as after extensively doing both, playing 8 & playing 10 are not that different in the 55s (the overwhelming bulk of my play).

In the 109s, I think there is a difference between 8 & 10 though, but that's anecdotal experience and I don't think I will try 10 enough to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I missing something?....Irieguy's request for participants made no mention of either of your criteria?

[/ QUOTE ]

From Irie's Original Post:

[ QUOTE ]
4. You play at least 4, and no more than 8 SNG tables at once when you play.


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

10+ tablers make up too small a percentage of SNG players.

Irieguy


[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why does this matter? They're still playing SnGs and there's no significant difference between how they play and how 8-tablers play.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is totally untrue in my experience.


[/ QUOTE ]


Edit: My point was that there may well indeed be a difference between 8 & 10 tabling at the 109s+, but I do not believe this to be the case at the 55s + below. Alas, it is not my project, so I respect his decision to run it the way he will, though I am excluded since my primary game is 10-tabling the 55s.

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

My Bad [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please enlighten me?

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Heisenberg formula itself is highly technical, but a more general principle is that:

"The act of observing an object changes the behavior of that object."

A tragic example is when the writer Jon Krakauer went on an Everest climb *and told everyone there he was writing a book about it*.

The professional guides whose living depended on getting people to the top *may* have made a marginal decision to attempt the summit *because* they were being observed more intensely than usual.

Of course, it ended up that a bunch of people died.

The implication here is that the subjects in Irieguy's experiment may be trying to impress him, playing a different style than usual, and therefore the Abominable Snowman is getting them.

Irieguy was smart to promise to keep the results anonymous, but he will still know... and the pros might feel they let the group down somehow by contribuing their crappy results... which might make them go on tilt during a bad run to "catch up"... which might lead to even worse results.

Not saying any of this is true, but it's certainly possible.

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

or they want to play really well so they're paying especially close attention to how they play and are avoinding FPS.

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can definately drag your results down some if you want them, but I will have less than 500, somewhere around 400.

I'm not sure if i'm on the list, so it's your call.

My results where also heavily influenced by my playing like crap lately due largely to my meds going ineffective on me, and me putting off going to see the dam doc for a month too long (way, way, WAY too long)

Good news is the higher dose seems to be working, and I will be able to provide a negative sample if you want it, thus restoring your faith in people's willingness to embarrass themselves. True, that public service is not worth the $8000+ I'm down this month, but it's something...

[/ QUOTE ]

Time for another final week comeback? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Heisenberg formula itself is highly technical, but a more general principle is that:

"The act of observing an object changes the behavior of that object."

A tragic example is when the writer Jon Krakauer went on an Everest climb *and told everyone there he was writing a book about it*.

The professional guides whose living depended on getting people to the top *may* have made a marginal decision to attempt the summit *because* they were being observed more intensely than usual.

Of course, it ended up that a bunch of people died.

The implication here is that the subjects in Irieguy's experiment may be trying to impress him, playing a different style than usual, and therefore the Abominable Snowman is getting them.

Irieguy was smart to promise to keep the results anonymous, but he will still know... and the pros might feel they let the group down somehow by contribuing their crappy results... which might make them go on tilt during a bad run to "catch up"... which might lead to even worse results.

Not saying any of this is true, but it's certainly possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression he just wanted results... I don't think he is intending anyone to send him HH's which you seem to be thinking.


Irie- I have stopped multitabling STTs for some time now (playing all cash and mtts, higher stts), I have data from a few steps and higher steps and some 555s on stars do you want those?

I also have about 400 215s recorded from around the start time of your experiment, I'll double check the date on them.

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

not likely. Most of that 8k is from mtt's. I'm demoralized to the point I'm gonna 8 tables 55's 50 hours a week till I've regrouped. I desperately need a low risk high return activity right now. It's leather ass, pay the rent time....

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Heisenberg formula itself is highly technical, but a more general principle is that:

"The act of observing an object changes the behavior of that object."

A tragic example is when the writer Jon Krakauer went on an Everest climb *and told everyone there he was writing a book about it*.

The professional guides whose living depended on getting people to the top *may* have made a marginal decision to attempt the summit *because* they were being observed more intensely than usual.

Of course, it ended up that a bunch of people died.

The implication here is that the subjects in Irieguy's experiment may be trying to impress him, playing a different style than usual, and therefore the Abominable Snowman is getting them.

Irieguy was smart to promise to keep the results anonymous, but he will still know... and the pros might feel they let the group down somehow by contribuing their crappy results... which might make them go on tilt during a bad run to "catch up"... which might lead to even worse results.

Not saying any of this is true, but it's certainly possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression he just wanted results... I don't think he is intending anyone to send him HH's which you seem to be thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

No... nobody said anything about HH. Simply reporting results could easily create potential distortions to someone's play. Maybe not yours, but someone's.

Re: Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update
 

[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

luckily i'm taking a break for the holidays or I would be scared too. immediately after signing up I went on my first ever 50 buy in downswing. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Time is up!
 

Ok, just in case anybody missed their PM or forgot, or whatever...

If you agreed to participate in the meta-analysis by sending me your "I agree" PM, it is time to submit your results.

The sooner I get all of the individual results, the sooner I can post the combined results, which should be tens of thousands of SNGs.

Thank you all,

Irieguy

Re: Time is up!
 

I'm out of town. I'll get it in tomorrow night if I get the chance.

Re: Time is up!
 

well, i'm still not sure if I was "in" or "out". If you want them, send instructions

Re: Time is up!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm out of town. I'll get it in tomorrow night if I get the chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Time is up!
 

I profited on this ish. ehot?

Latest Update 12/29
 

I have received 24 out of 35 sets of data. I'm still hoping to do better than that.

I will be on vacation for the next 8 days, so I will allow that time to hopefully get some more responses.

I will post the compiled results early in January when I get back.

Happy New Year to all.

Irieguy

Re: Latest Update 12/29
 

I havent recieved any PM's [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Does that mean i'm not part of this?
I thought i volunteered, perhaps only in the thread though.
Oh well.

Re: Latest Update 12/29
 

Will be sending mine in by Saturday.

Re: Latest Update 12/29
 

If you want another 300 or so from the $22s let me know.

I've only been back at SNGs for a month but it's all 6 tabling and such.

I'm looking forward to this. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Latest Update 12/29
 

Mine's been sent, I'm free of the curse, yippeeeeee!