astroglide/ question for you

[PokerHorse]

Thanks for directing me to the stats. Are you guys complete morons????? Any scientist would laugh these stats off.
here is why: He played for 1 month! It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.
what it boils down too is that he had a okay month, or if he was playing only 4 hours a day then 2 months.
I have had stretches of 5-8 months of over 1 bb bet per hour at normal rates of speed.
Seeing more hands per hour does not change the probabilities of the game.he is making less than 1 bb per hour i should point out. Also at 6 games you are risking significantly more money than at a standard 3-6 game/ 6 times as much. Whats the point here???
A one month result does not tell me the game can be beaten long term this way.
i was really hoping to see a 1 or 2 year result.

You guys think I'm some sort of idiot while you are having the wool pulled over your eyes. I have read recent posts [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] by astroglide claiming that he would eat players for breakfast at 15-30 if they tried to move up. These kind of statements make me wonder if he actually grasps the true nature of how you win,LONGTERM at this game.
Go ahead and flame away boys and girls, you are being duped.

[razor]

NICE!!!

You Win!

[djack]

We aren't being duped. Most of us are making that kind of money.

[Vehn]

Dumbest poster ever.

[NoChance]

Please just let this die. Does it really matter that this person doesn't get it? It changes nothing. He is only wasting your time and he seems to be pretty good at it.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.


[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, dude. I mean, wow.
Get yourself a statistics book, man. Even gabyyy doesn't say shiit this dumb.
So, if he was able to play 1,000,000 hands in one month, it wouldn't matter because it's only one month?
Oh [censored] it, never mind. Your a moron.

[PokerHorse]

One further point as I look at these stats. In order to make 50k a year playing the full year with the ups and downs you would need to play 96 hours a week, since it translates to 10hr. Like I said on my original post ,It's not no big deal, it is a big deal. when you play 6 games at once are you playing 3-6 or 36-72? bye bye

[PseudoPserious]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter if it is 100000 hands when you are able to play 350 or more hands per hour. It is the time that is significant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't comment on anything else in this thread (I don't consider myself qualified), but this I'll take a stab at.

I disagree with this statement. I can't imagine that you honestly believe it. Let's start with your basic assumption and see where that takes us:

(your statement) Time is significant factor in getting to the long term, not the number of hands played.

- So, there is an amount of time played (let's call it X years) at which your actual results start to approach your long term results.

- Let's say that I play one hand per year. I've played X hands total. By your reasoning, I've approached the "long term".

Ahh, but now you say, that's silly, obviously during the time it takes you reach the long term, you must play some "reasonable" number of hands, or the time doesn't count. Let's call the "reasonable" number of hands for your time to count Y hands per year.

Okay, so now I play Y hands in 1 year, then don't play again until the next year, in which I play another Y hands. I continue this for X years. By your reasoning, I've reached the long term after X years. This is X*Y total hands.

But how is that any different than playing X*Y hands all in a row, instead of waiting for a new calendar year every time I hit a multiple of Y? Who cares is I played all of those hands in one month, or if I spend them out over a number of years? And so isn't the total number of hands much, much more important in determining when the "long run" is reached than the time spent actually playing those hands?

100,000 hands. Figure 30 hands per hour at a B&M room, and that's over 2 years of playing live poker 40 hours a week every week. That's a bunch. Maybe not enough to reach the "long term" (which is insanely long), but it's certainly a statistically significant sample size.

Ignore the "one month" part of Astro's pretty picture if it bugs you that much, and focus your criticism on the rest of it. I won't deny that's it's possible that Astro is just running well, not playing well. I won't argue with you if you claim that the reason that he's doing well despite it being "impossible" is because it's not impossible, just highly unlikely, and even a million-to-one shot will hit, on average, one of of every million players, so SOMEBODY must be doing very well at the "impossible", and that somebody might as well be Astro. But I don't believe that to be true, and you'll need to attack some other, more significant, number in his stats than the "one month" time frame.

Cheers,
PP

[bpb]

In addition to being a moron, you suck at math too.

4 tables = 200 hands /hr
x 8 hrs a day = 1600 hands/day
x 5 days a week = 8000 hands/week
x 50 weeks = 400,000 hands/year
x 3 BB (=$18)/100 hands = $72,000

So at 3 BB/hr, you can make $72k playing 40 hrs/week with 2 weeks vacation 4 tabling $3/6.

[PokerHorse]

having the ability to play more hands per month doesnt answer the question unless you say that you are going to play until you make 50,000 and then stop playing. You get a grip mr stats. The point is, lets say that astroglide continues to play and not stop. You believe that he should have the same result as the first month every month. You are deluded sample size is relative . A lifetime used to be x number of hands. Now its changed because of this ability to play so many more hands, but since these hands arent coming from just 1 game, you arent really playing 3-6 are you. you are playing a much larger game collectively. so if you want to really break it down , you arent even playing 3-6 to begin with, its many times the size. if you happen to play 6 hands all at one time, how much are you risking? somewhere over 200.00 ? is that 3-6? no, so back the stats out to a single 3-6 game which comes out to $10.00 an hour. In order to make 50k at 3-6 at his win rate(which is very respectable) he has to play 96 hours a week.
now you go get your stats book my friend.