I know I'm a quack for posting this about DR 510 down swing, but

dogmeat · #1 01-29-2005, 01:11 PM

Hey, I hate to see a respected poster/player like David Ross take such a large hit (-510BB in nine days), but I for one have always believed that swings even out. I would bet a steak dinner for David (and friends/family) in June at the WSOP that he will have a very significant increase in winning percentage by Valentines Day that easily wipes this amount out. I know that makes no sense from a mathematical standpoint, but I'm more on the Doyle Brunson side of this - streaks happen, and they even out.

That said, the upper part is not the part where I could be considered a quack (well, yeah, I guess there too), but....

I posted last month about this and nobody really cared. But what if Party and affiliates did the following:

They juiced the cards preflop for aces and faces. Would this not increase the number of players each hand, and would this not make the number of times a mediocre hand won higher? Especially straights and small connectors?

I know the following stats are not entirely accurate because they (1) only apply to my starting cards (2) Don't include any hands where I did not see the flop.

When I started with an ace and a face card, I expect to at least pair a card 35% of the time. However, for 15,000 hands my average has been 24.37%

That means I have flopped a pair/2pair/trips to the ace and/or face in my hand 25% less than the expected amount - for 15,000 total hands played (not actual hands with an ace/face).

I held the ace/face hand 1087 times (is this amount so high as to prove the hands are hitting more than they should preflop) and hit the flop 265 times for a percentage hit of 24.37% - is this percentage for 1000+ samples so low as to be impossibly small for a fair game? It seems to me, yes.

On the other hand, I'm still winning at my usual rate. But I wonder, if these numbers are too small for chance, would not the lessening of aces and faces on the flop hurt the aggressive players that always pop the pot preflop with these hands? And are not most of the best "pros" aggressive, and don't they like to raise/cap pots preflop with bigslick etc?

Yeah, I know I'm a Quack. Maybe the numbers I am getting are a statistical abberation and over the course of 300,000 hands will even out. I swore off poker tracker a few months ago, and don't have anything else to look at, but

Quack, quack

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

gonores · #2 01-29-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I swore off poker tracker a few months ago,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the stupidest thing you wrote in your entire post (and that's saying a lot). Sounds like you are diverting valuable energy away from improving your game.

dogmeat · #3 01-29-2005, 01:36 PM

Thanks for your response, gonores. I've always enjoyed your posts and respected their contend.

On the other hand, I never said I was not winning my usual amount during the loss of poker tracker, or the counting of flops hit. FWIW, I stopped counting because it is irrelevent at this point since I have made some subtle adjustments to my play.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

gonores · #4 01-29-2005, 01:42 PM

you took the time to record results from 1087 hands and to compile the data. IMO, that's just not a good use of a poker player's time. But swearing off pokertracker takes the cake. There is no good reason for that.

dogmeat · #5 01-29-2005, 04:57 PM

I've always advocated Poker Tracker for new players, I think it is a very valuable tool, and I like to make money, but sometimes I like to play with only my brain and no extra tracking. No, I can't play eight tables, or even six and get the best results, but I can play three or four and make enough money and tax my own mental capacities instead of using a computer.

I'm sure I'll go back to Poker Tracker at some point in the future, but playing poker for the past 18 months sometimes needs to be more interesting than just sitting and playing ABC with the help of PT. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

gonores · #6 01-29-2005, 05:03 PM

No one said you had to use it while you played. It is invaluable before and after sessions as well.

dogmeat · #7 01-29-2005, 04:52 PM

You don't have to believe me, and you don't even have to try counting yourself for a couple hours, but: before lunch I held an ace and a face card 28 times and hit the flop 7 times - again, 25%

After lunch I held an ace and a face card 13 times and hit the flop 3 times - 23%

Overall 41 chances and hit 10 - 24.4%

Anybody want to guess why this is happening?

I'm not saying Party has to have a problem, but I am saying these numbers are very constant for a very long number of chances. Maybe I have forgotten something that would change the math?

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

AceHigh · #8 01-29-2005, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but I am saying these numbers are very constant for a very long number of chances.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand what a very long number is.

dogmeat · #9 01-29-2005, 09:30 PM

Maybe I really don't understand the "long-run" and "long-numbers". However, if you take the time to figure out the chance of a 35% probability coming up only 25% over the course of 1000 trys, you will get a really, really long number!

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

BigBlind · #10 01-30-2005, 07:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I really don't understand the "long-run" and "long-numbers". However, if you take the time to figure out the chance of a 35% probability coming up only 25% over the course of 1000 trys, you will get a really, really long number!

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be interested to see the number. Anyone care to do the math. I don't know how to do it.