[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a lawyer, I'm continually surprised by how much information you can get by simply asking. Assume that an online site were willing to assist. What and how much information would you be looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

The size of the blinds at the time the match gets to be HU seems like it would be a relevant factor.

One issue that interests me about the data collection is how many data points one should take from each tournament. Let's say I play 20 hands heads up against my opponent; should we use this as 20 data points? My gut feeling is no, we shouldn't, because any deviations from average behavior become magnified.

As an oversimplified, unrealistic example of what I'm talking about, say I get heads up with blinds of 100, my stack being 2000, villain's stack being 8000. Now let's say he's ridiculously tight, so tight, in fact, that he'll fold anything but aces. Now I should win this just about all of the time, and so I'm going to skew the data horrendously if you take multiple data points from this tournament that show my small stack overcoming a major disadvantage and winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read all the posts yet, I'll do that when I have more time, so I don't know if you guys came to a conclusion on how many data points to use.

It seems to me that you could just use the final hand of each tourney. There are only 4k possible starting stacks in an 8k chip tourney, and 5k possibilities in a 10k chip tourney. So if you managed to get 5 million final hands, that ought to give you sufficient data. Then you can examine the deviation between stack% and win%. I don't know how useful that would be in coming up with a new chip modelling theory, but it could be used to validate the linear theory that Sklansky suggests.

Again, this may have been brought up already, and perhaps even shot down thoroughly. Just a thought I had while reading through the first page.