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?