Two Plus Two Older Archives

Two Plus Two Older Archives (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Poker Theory (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   The Linear Equality Fallacy (http://archives2.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=404395)

Timer 12-24-2005 12:42 AM

The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
Quote:

"I make $50 an hour playing 5-10 no limit 20 hours a week--$1000. If I played 50 hours a week I'd make $2500. But because of other commitments, school, work, washing my car, dog walks, yoga classes and peace of mind I only play the 20 hours. But if I had the time!!! I'd go for the $2500.

In my xx years of playing, more hours at the table does not necessarily equate into more dollars won. It's not linear. It might be linear up to a point. But it's not a straight linear progression as I see posted here time and time again.

12-24-2005 12:55 AM

Re: The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
true, should have elaborated more though

TiltSeeker 12-24-2005 01:04 AM

Re: The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
unless you're some kind of superhuman who gets better and better as the hours wane deep into the morning, I'm pretty sure we're talking about REgression.

ohnonotthat 12-24-2005 06:28 AM

Re: The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
Cute - but incorrect

Used in the mathmatical context, regression refers to a return to (or toward) the mean; this is not what is happening here.

"Diminishing returns" might work here; a shift in the "product possibilities curve" (for all you economists) might work as well - though you'd have to really stretch the definition for the latter to apply.

Regression suggests that the long hours cause the win rate to fall back toward the mean - or toward that which was initially expected to occur.

If this were so, a LOSING player would be expected to improve as he got more and more tired.

*

1. This was not a case of me nitpicking; I learned the hard way what can happen when you apply less than precise definitions to terms in the statistical arena. (It goes without saying that your assertion that we lose our MoJo as we become more sleep deprived is, of course, correct).

2. If anyone out there knows Dan's interpretation of "regression" to be correct please respond so I may both appologize to him AND update my own definition for this term.

*

Be well,

Chris

*

"Not me, I didn't pick that out; I asked your . . . Oh, you LIKE it ? . . . That's different . . . Yep, it was me; the minute I saw it I thought of you". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

AlanBostick 12-24-2005 02:49 PM

Re: The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
Hmm. Over the past two years I've been winning about $50/hour in my local $15-$30 limit HE game, playing about two hours every week on average.

This month, because I'm between clients and I haven't been too assiduous about hustling new ones, and because $50/hour is more than I get to bill my clients anyway, I have been playing about twenty hours a week, and I'm still averaging $50/hour.

Consistency of hourly rate over a ten-fold increase of playing frequency .... that looks linear to me.

damaniac 12-24-2005 03:15 PM

Re: The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
Your sample size over that time period is woefully indaequate to begin to conclude anything about winrates. In any event, if what the OP is talking about is playing less than optimally after a certain number of hours, then that might not well be the case in your example. It is probable that most people can play as optimally as they are capable for 20 hours a week, especially live. Now if you upped it to 60 hours a week, we might reasonably espect to see a decrease, over a large enough number of hands.

AlanBostick 12-24-2005 09:45 PM

Re: The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
I maintain my spreadsheets and you don't, so you aren't in a position to say anything about what conclusions can or cannot be drawn from my dataset.

I have a graduate degree in experimental physics, and I suspect you don't, so I suspect I might maybe possibly understand rather more about analysis of noisy data than you do.

Would it shut you up if, rather than "$50/hour" I had said "$47 +/- $23" for the two years' data and "$48 +/- $40" for the three weeks' data?

OP was using a lot of fancy ten-dollar words, not very adeptly, to say something that either was total nonsense or nothing more deep than "every amplifier has its rail."

damaniac 12-25-2005 12:58 AM

Re: The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
I'll be nice, I swear.

[ QUOTE ]
Over the past two years I've been winning about $50/hour in my local $15-$30 limit HE game, playing about two hours every week on average.


[/ QUOTE ]

30 hands per hour x 2 hours per week x 52 weeks per year x 2 years = 6240 hands. That's nothing. Nothing. Unless you totally mistated how much you play, you can conclude next to nothing about your winrate over that many hands. I don't have a degree in anything involving math, but I know that.

ohnonotthat 12-25-2005 03:45 AM

Alan, be reasonable
 
I failed physics, TWICE, but c'mon.

The total amount of time you describe is less than 2 weeks play for the typical full time pro.

I've seen empty chairs run hot for 100 hours; I've also seen some of the best in the game run ice cold for lengths of time 5 times as long.

In your defense, there is one thing that tends to be overlooked.

You are at the very least far more likely than unlikely to win at this game for as long as you choose to play it; I'd much prefer to put my faith in someone who has run good for a fairly short period of time than in someone who has run poorly but [sic] "really does know what he's doing".

BTW, what does any of this have to do with the OP's contention that even that damned battery bunny will eventually show signs of slowing down ?

No lucid person would expect your results to sufffer due to an increase in playing time from 2 hrs/week to 20; if anything I'd think they would get better. Playing a real (3 to 6 hour) session allows your mind to fully adapt from physics to poker - something a 90 minute session might not allow for.

I believe the OP was saying that there is a non linear relationship between toal hours played and total dollars won - and I can see no way to question this.

Even if the raw number of hours is not so large as to cause one's play (focus) to suffer there is the stone cold fact that if I play 20 hours per week knowing that my profit from these sessions will represent most or even all of my income I'm sure as hell going to choose the 20 hours at which I am firing on all pistons; this option is not available to someone who spends all his time at the cardroom or in front of his computer.

Sincerely,

- Chris

pzhon 12-25-2005 09:47 AM

Re: The Linear Equality Fallacy
 
There are declining marginal returns if you normally use good game selection.

According to PokerTracker, my win rate is greatest on Friday nights and Staurdays. I don't think my play is much worse at other times. I think it is just that there are more donators playing (and drinking) at those times relative to the number of sharks. Last weekend, some of the plays made me check to make sure I wasn't at a play money table. A guy raised, then called my limp-reraise and flop 1/2 pot push with 32o unimproved. I didn't win that pot by playing well. I won because my opponent hated money.

If I wanted to play 10 hours per week, I could make sure to play them all at peak times. That's not possible for 50 hours per week, so it would be unreasonable to assume that I could make 5 times as much.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.