Redefining "Cold-Decked"

[naphand]

And I agreed with him... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

However, what stimulated my response was Scotch's bizarre notion that talking about low V$IP sessions qualified as "interesting".

Scotch "Interesting" 78?

ROFL

I enjoyed making this post, which is what matters to me... [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[chris_a]

For a binomial distribution (sums of yes/no events) the standard deviation of the event after N hands is:

sqrt(p * (1-p) * N)

So if your true VPIP is 17%, then after 1000 hands your standard deviation in number of hands that you voluntarily put money in is:

sqrt( 0.17 * 0.83 *1000 ) = 11.9 hands. Divide that by 1000 and you get that your corresponding deviation (in %) is 1.19%. So after 1000 hands, you are within 1 standard deviation if you are between 17-1.19 = 15.81% and 17 + 1.19 = 18.19%

2 standard deviations would be between 14.69% and 19.38%.
3 would be between 13.43% and 20.57%

So I'd say that what you saw wasn't that out of the ordinary.

[Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I figured out what my hand distribution should have been (20 for pairs, 55 for offsuiteds and 14 for suiteds)

[/ QUOTE ]
This number doesn't seem right to me. Is it not once in every 111 hands that you have get a certain offsuited hand? That would make it 40.5 for offsuiteds in 4500 and the your numbers for offsuited would not be far off from the average distribution.

The ratio between offsuited and suited should be 3:1, in your numbers this ratio is 4:1 so it seems the suited hands have been counted twice.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
The ratio between offsuited and suited should be 3:1, in your numbers this ratio is 4:1 so it seems the suited hands have been counted twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I did 8/52 * 4 /51, so now I'm even more perplexed how I lost so much VP$IP [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Scott