astroglide/ question for you

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you prove me right with every post you make.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea why scientists and statisticians look at long-term data? It's because they need a certain number of results to ensure their conclusion is accurate. If they could speed up the data-gathering process, they would. It would still remain valid.

Here's a quick question:

Say you have no idea about how to calculate probabilities and you want to track the results of throwing two dice. You manually toss the dice and record the result. Each one takes 6 seconds. So every minute you get 10 results. Say you figured you needed 100,000,000 results to be able to draw an accurate conclusion. It would take you about 20 years to get 100,000,000 results.

Now let's say you recruit 10 of your friends to help you. You can now get 10 results in 6 seconds. So it will only take you about 2 years to get the 100,000,000 results you need.

Now you go out and buy a computer. It calculates the 100,000,000 results in about 6 seconds. Is this any less valid a result than when you did it by hand by yourself?

This is exactly what is happening with online poker - more tables + more hands/hr = faster convergence to your true win rate

If you don't understand this (or don't believe it), then you deserve to lose all your money.

[PseudoPserious]

Before heeding the advice of others, I'll post one more thing.

I don't agree with your figure of 96 hours per week.

Astro makes 2.95 BB/100 hands. So, he makes .0295 BB for every hand he plays. At $3/$6, that's 17.7 cents a hand. To make $50,000, he'll have to play 282,500 hands.

In a B&M casino, that's 9416 hours at 30 hands per hour, or 181 hours every week. Quite unlikely.

On the internet at a single table, that's 4708 hours at 60 hands per hour, or 90 hours every week. Not impossible like B&M, but not easy to say the least.

Assuming 60 hands per table per hour, let's see what playing on multiple tables does:

2 tables - 2355 hours - 45 hours a week
3 tables - 1570 hours - 30 hours a week
4 tables - 1177 hours - 22 hours a week
5 tables - 942 hours - 18 hours a week
6 tables - 785 hours - 15 hours a week

So, it looks like by multi-tabling, making 50K/year at 3/6 is doable.

-----------

This might be the source of your confusion concerning the 96 hours number: in his PT stats, there are two blocks called "Hours" and "Total minutes" which are about 1.5k and 94k, respectively. These blocks represent total table time, not actual time spent in front of the computer. So, by playing simultaneously at two tables for an hour, he'd get 2 hours and 120 minutes added to those totals, but he'd only have spent 1 hour of his life playing poker. Don't let those two blocks distract you -- focus on the important numbers, the main figure of which is BB/100 hands.

----------

If you want to attack his credibility, you need to assess the sustainability of his 2.95 BB/100 hands results -- figure out the associated error +/- x BB/100 hands, or assess the probability that his true rate is significantly lower (say, 1.5 BB/100 hands), and that he's just been running well lately.

Cheers,
PP

[moondogg]

Ok, one more poke at the troll, and then I'm done. I promise.

[ QUOTE ]
You believe that he should have the same result as the first month every month. You are deluded sample size is relative .

[/ QUOTE ]
Normally, no, based on the number of hands people normally play in a month. However, if he plays over 100K hands in a month, yes, I would expect him to get reasonably close to the "long run" the vast majority of months.

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sure you are.
[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]
No you're not.
[ QUOTE ]

if you happen to play 6 hands all at one time, how much are you risking? somewhere over 200.00 ?


[/ QUOTE ]
At any given time, yes you may be wagering over 200. However, you are not wagering all of it on one hand. You are wagering it across 4 hands, each of which is independent of each other. The fact that they 4 hands are proceeding simulatneously is irrelevant. I believe that you are attempting to imply that his variance and standard deviation would increase, but you failed, because it is not true. If that $200 were based on the outcome of one hand, yes, his variance would increase. However, because it is based on the outcome of 4 independent hands, his variance actually decreases. By the sheer fact that so many more hands are going by per hour, this expected variance over the course of any hour goes down as short-term luck fades more quickly. Here's a simple demonstration of why: if variance demonstrated by unlikely events happening, then in order for a single hand to cause variance the unlikely has to happen once; in order for 4 simulataneous hands to cause variance, the unlikely has to happen several times, making it exponentially more unlikely. Any given hand where you lose money is more quickly offset by the other 3 hands that are falling within the bounds of what is likely, expected, and probable.
This is why such things are measured by the number of trials, rather than the time over which the trials are executed. See the one-hand-per-year response above.
[ QUOTE ]

is that 3-6?


[/ QUOTE ]
Again, yes it is. In fact, as explained above, it is a much more stabilized 3/6 game.
[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, if you actual take the two seconds necessary to calculate it, it's $11.46/hour. Anyhow, someone just addressed this part above. I know you don't like to actually read the responses to threads you start, so just look for the one that starts with something like "in addition to being a moron, you also suck at math".
[ QUOTE ]

now you go get your stats book my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you attempting to suggest that there was anything in your post having to do with statistics? Or probability? I know you mentioned risk/etc, but you clearly didn't know what they hell you were talking about there. Anyhow, I have some books. I actually read them. Hell, I even go so far as to admit there are things that I don't know much about. Beats the hell out of jumping into a forum, getting on a soapbox, and bitching and moaning about how everone is either lying or delusional.

FWIW, I am going to leave this thread, topic, and moron for now. The conversation, which was pretty stupid to begin with, has descended into a bizarre level of ignorance.

Have a nice day.

Now go away.

[MicroBob]

i officially cannot understand how you can be this misinformed.
what's sad is that most americans' understanding of statistics is just as terrible as yours.
they take a couple of concepts that they think they understand...inappropriately combine them...and make up something that logically makes no sense whatsoever.


it's kind of sad actually.
you are unfortunately proving my point that no matter what you do or how clearly you explain the obvious some people just cannot be helped.


how you deduced that he needs to play 96 hours a week is beyond me.
did you get together with gabbyyy on that whole 2000:1 shot on an inside-straight draw thing??


the math and hourly win-rate necessary has been laid out for you several times and you don't seem to get it somehow.


you asked for someone to post their stats and they did and now you claim that it doesn't count because he played the hands too fast.
truly truly bizarre.

and somehow i don't think you are a troll and i somehow think you are serious...but what do i know?



[ QUOTE ]
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,

[/ QUOTE ]


yes....now he can get in 9x as many hands in a lifetime without breaking a sweat.
this does not change the confidence that one can have in a 100k hand sample size. why you think it should is beyond me.


unfortunately, someone already beat me to the punch on the longevity of one's sample-size.
i was debating whether to use 'one hand a day' or 'one hand a year' and then i saw it was already posted.


if astro plays 100k hands in a month....and you play 20k hands in 2 years...are you really saying that you can have more confidence in your results just because you played the hands at a slower rate??

if astro plays 500k hands in a year and you play 400 hands over the course of 20 years then is there magically somehow a greater degree of confidence because of how long it took you to play your hands.


perhaps you really are on to something here.
i'm going to go to the casino and just play 10 hands a day for 20 years and make my living that way. i can have greater confidence in my hourly win-rate.

additionally, i think we all should ask our dealers to deliver the cards more slowly.

'oh crap...there goes the confidence in my win-rate...that damn dealer spread out the flop WAY to fast! slow down my man....we ain't in no hurry here!!'

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
The conversation, which was pretty stupid to begin with, has descended into a bizarre level of ignorance.


[/ QUOTE ]


good line.
i think i'm going to have to borrow the phrase 'bizarre level of ignorance' every once in awhile.

[Rudbaeck]

I'm new to this site, but not new to the internet and 'poster husbandry'.

To everyone: Do not feed the troll!

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing 6 tables of 3-6 for one hour is nowhere near the same as playing one table of 18-36 for one hour. It is much closer to playing one table of 3-6 for 6 hours.

Standard deviation per hour (SD/hr) would be about 6 times higher for the single table 18-36 game vs a single table of 3-6, while the SD/hr of 6 tables of 3-6 would be closer to 2.44 (sqrt(6)) times the SD/hr of a single table of 3-6.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
now you go get your stats book my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the most ironic statement ever posted here.

[MMMMMM]

"Go ahead and flame away boys and girls, you are being duped."

Yes, by you I suspect.