Early results.... I Stink

[John Hurst]

Did you call him Joey after you knocked him out?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Damn it. I should have realized this was a joke post. My sarcasm detector must be faulty. NH

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope it was just the worst joke in the entire world. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Mack

[Slim Pickens]

55 tournaments? Your sample size is way too large for this to be a statistically significant joke post.

Slim

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
55 tournaments? Your sample size is way to large for this to be a statistically significant joke post.

Slim

[/ QUOTE ]

lol...g1

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one sick of sample size snobs

No you're not. sample size is irrelevant here with those 4th place finishes...and even if those are just noise, who's to say that his bubble game couldnt use some work?

post some hands

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that saying the sample size is too small and then saying your bubble game could probably use some work is a bit of a contradiction.

Of course his bubble game could probably use some work, as well as his pre-bubble game and likely his ITM game as well. You can also put me in the its very likely this player is not a winning player and should move down immediately to at least the 20+2s (unless he provides some information that this is just the work of an awful run of cards or has enough money that he can afford and would prefer to learn at the 50+5s).

Although the sample size is small, that doesn't make it completely irrelevant. With results this poor its quite unlikely he is anything more and a marginal winner at best and it seems just plain silly to continue to throw money away at the 50s (although I would love to have more losing players there of course). People on these forums seem to want to believe that every one who posts is a winning player and want to dismiss a run like this as "just a bad run" or "insignificant sample size" when in fact most SNG players are losers.

That said, GK cares enough about trying to improve that he posted this. So I'm all about trying to help if I can, but like others have already stated: posting a list of finishes gives very little info to actually let anyone help you. Post some hands and situations you are unsure about and let the experts help where they actually can.

Edit: meh, that will teach me to respond without reading the whole thread. Anyway, some of what I wrote still holds true.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one sick of sample size snobs

No you're not. sample size is irrelevant here with those 4th place finishes...and even if those are just noise, who's to say that his bubble game couldnt use some work?

post some hands

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that saying the sample size is too small and then saying your bubble game could probably use some work is a bit of a contradiction.

Of course his bubble game could probably use some work, as well as his pre-bubble game and likely his ITM game as well. You can also put me in the its very likely this player is not a winning player and should move down immediately to at least the 20+2s (unless he provides some information that this is just the work of an awful run of cards or has enough money that he can afford and would prefer to learn at the 50+5s).

Although the sample size is small, that doesn't make it completely irrelevant. With results this poor its quite unlikely he is anything more and a marginal winner at best and it seems just plain silly to continue to throw money away at the 50s (although I would love to have more losing players there of course). People on these forums seem to want to believe that every one who posts is a winning player and want to dismiss a run like this as "just a bad run" or "insignificant sample size" when in fact most SNG players are losers.

That said, GK cares enough about trying to improve that he posted this. So I'm all about trying to help if I can, but like others have already stated: posting a list of finishes gives very little info to actually let anyone help you. Post some hands and situations you are unsure about and let the experts help where they actually can.

Edit: meh, that will teach me to respond without reading the whole thread. Anyway, some of what I wrote still holds true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes...we are responding to an unfunny joke...(not funny and hence the "real" responses)

However...I wasnt so clear in what I meant so Ill just clarify.

First of all, I didnt say I thought the sample size was too small (it is), but I didnt say it.

When I said the sample is irrelevant, I only meant in regards to its overall meaning, but what I thought WAS relevant, even after 57 games, was his 4th place finishes. If that were a true distribution I would say that this kid MAYBE having probs on the bubble.

Its not your bad, I was unclear in my wording...but I wasnt being contradictory (how dare you!!!!) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

p