stats question but not \"stats\"
 

Not sure this is the right forum but I've been looking at a winner's hands/stats. One thing I noticed was that both him and me have won almost exactly the same amount of money over a given stretch (15k hands IIRC). At first I thought this was revealing but then it occured to me that given the distribution of premium hands (big assumption that they're somewhat steady for such a small sample), is it really that surprising we would have won virtually identical amounts playing the same limit?

Mike

Re: stats question but not \"stats\"
 

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I noticed was that both him and me have won almost exactly the same amount of money over a given stretch (15k hands IIRC). ... given the distribution of premium hands (big assumption that they're somewhat steady for such a small sample), is it really that surprising we would have won virtually identical amounts playing the same limit?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. The standard deviation of the difference between your results should be about 250 BB. So, even if you happen to have the same win rate (unlikely), it would be very easy for him to have a win rate that is 1.5 BB/100 higher or lower than you.

Re: stats question but not \"stats\"
 

Thank you.

Now that I see my post I don't think I worded it correctly. The amount we've "won" is the total for hands not folded. This is why I thought it could simply be a function of the distribution of premiums we (or anybody could have) received. IOW, assuming similar distributions of premiums, maybe it's not at all surprising the two grosses are virtually identical.

He happens to have (IMM) an impressive win rate; and has been steady throughout 30k hands (I'm not making a big deal of wr because I understand the tiny samples; but for comparison's sake I'm intrigued). I'm a net loser and our wr rates differ by about 5bb/100. So we diverge after subtracting the blind costs from the gross and comparing the two net amounts; his is +, mine is -.

With the proviso that these are virtually meaningless samples, I was still led to believe that given we've won the same gross amount, my problem isn't that I can't win per se, but that I can't hang on to it like he has apparently done. This is the deduction I was wondering if it could be correct?

Mike

Re: stats question but not \"stats\"
 

now that you've reworded it, i understand and it's interesting.

when i used to play the wilson turbo software (i don't have poker tracker), when i would look at the stats for a game, the best profiles (like bret maverick) would often win the fewest pots, the least $$$$$. but he would also invest alot less than others, much lower flop %. i.e. win less and lose alot less.

yeah, you have to be tight pre-flop (which a fair number of people are), but you have to be giving it up a fair amount thereafter (not too much though - see miller SSHE).