Meta-Analysis Project: Help Wanted

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you davehwm. I've been trying to tell him this but u do a better job with articulating it.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, but I actually don't think I'm articulating it very well, myself. It just screams waste of time, to me.

Basically, you can't assume cause and effect at all from a study like this. The statement: "The split of the party poker skins caused a decrease in $SNG/hr" would be completely flawed, statistically and logically based on a set of data like this.

I think if this is cross posted in the Probability forum, some of the stat geeks would be able to give a multitude of reasons why it's not statistically sound. I could start, but I don't feel comfortable enough with all the terminology (it's been quite a while since I've takend research methods or worked in a lab).

[microbet]

I don't think he's trying to draw many accurate conclusions. I think he's trying to get into the ballpark on one specific thing.

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he's trying to draw many accurate conclusions. I think he's trying to get into the ballpark on one specific thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is?

[microbet]

I'm just pulling this out of my arse, but maybe the current profitibility of SNGs at party.

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just pulling this out of my arse, but maybe the current profitibility of SNGs at party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he can get an answer to that question without a pretty freakin' large margin of error based on the statistical flaws in the data collection process. He will most likely find that they are still profitable. He will not find a number that is in the ballpark, as to how profitable they are.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he's trying to draw many accurate conclusions. I think he's trying to get into the ballpark on one specific thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I am finished, you will know how much money a group of previously successful SNG players earned over 30,000+ SNGs in a short period of time.

I am not going to beg anybody to find meaning in that. If you feel that you are better off by not even knowing the results, then you should not look at the data. If you feel that you are better off by knowing, or if you are in any way curious... then you can look at it because I will post it.

That is all. This is not complicated, nor have I said I am setting out to prove anything.

I am collecting some data. I sincerely apologize if this angers some people.

Irieguy

[sofere]

I think its an interesting experiment. I don't think its one I'm going to draw any hard and fast conclusions off of though.

The goal of the experiment was to "have a reasonable understanding of how much $/SNG a skilled 2+2er can make while multi-tabling the 800 chip and 1000 chip SNGs on Party right now."

It will not (and I don't think its Irie's intention) to come up with an average of 2+2 ROI. It also does not seek to achieve a range of ROI at which one could expect to be.

If say the average over the 10k SNGs is 20% ROI, then it is reasonable to assume that a skilled SNGer can possibly obtain an ROI of 20% at the time of the experiment.

To me though it would basically be a nice way to measure my e-penis in the privacy of my own home without having everyone else glare at me and flame me for it.

Moral of the story, you whip out your e-penis in public, you wind up with e-herpes all you're left with is a flaming e-penis.

[microbet]

Well, the diffences in opinions on this issue make for a pretty big ballpark. I'm certainly not saying it will definitely show anything, but it might. Maybe he'll get 100,000 sngs. Maybe the results will be surprising in some way. Anyway, I don't mean to fight, I'm just phenomenally bored with my job.

[davehwm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he's trying to draw many accurate conclusions. I think he's trying to get into the ballpark on one specific thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I am finished, you will know how much money a group of previously successful SNG players earned over 30,000+ SNGs in a short period of time.

I am not going to beg anybody to find meaning in that. If you feel that you are better off by not even knowing the results, then you should not look at the data. If you feel that you are better off by knowing, or if you are in any way curious... then you can look at it because I will post it.

That is all. This is not complicated, nor have I said I am setting out to prove anything.

I am collecting some data. I sincerely apologize if this angers some people.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are just collecting data, that is fine. It will not come close to showing you the profitability of SNGs, though. It will be a number that is flawed statistically because of the different sample sizes for each player and the skill difference between these players (and the levels they are playing at).

If I measure the batting averages for Barry Bonds over 500 at bats, Andruw Jones over 750 at bats and an above average minor league player over 1000 at bats, then average these for a batting average, I learn nothing. Especially if no one else observes these at-bats and I ask the baseball players to report the data to me themselves.

P.S. I'm not angry at all. I thought it was a pretty civil discussion.

[sofere]

I would love to see this separated out by buy-in, in addition to as a composite. The sample per buy-in would probably not be significant, but I'm just curious.

I also don't think it would be that much more work.