[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a big statistics guy, so if I have screwed any of these calculations up please let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't check everything but it looks good to me.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it speaks to the importance of actual reads based on past actions and continuing to keep more qualitative tabs on players through the notes function.

[/ QUOTE ]
They have a place. But mathematical debunking should be an equal opportunity exercise. As risky as it is to draw conclusions based on 50 hands of stats, it is even more risky to draw conclusions based on a tiny handful of noteworthy hands. Most players are very inconsistent in how they handle the same situation. It's the mark of a fine player that he minimizes unintentional inconsistency in his play. Most players are extremely prone to Caro's Law of Loose Wiring.

Of course it's virtually never the same situation as the hand from your notes anyway. You may think two situations are comparable but Villain may totally disagree with you.

As perilous as stats are, the small number of reads typically available online are no panacea. Those who have read my analyses for a while may have noticed that I am very skeptical of narrow conclusions about how Villain might play. I assume that much of what I "know" is probably wrong and seek plays that work well over a wide range of conditions. I especially worry about making plays such as tricky folds that are extremely vulnerable to exploitation from a game theory perspective. I consider most of my opponents to be much more random than most players give them credit for.