Pokernomics

[Rudbaeck]

http://www.pokernomics.com

Levitt is attacking poker with the brute force approach. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with, and if you haven't read Frekonomics it's a nice chance to get his book signed and free. (You can learn the effect of Roe v Wade on armed crime at the turn of the millenium!)

Too bad he is writing this book, I'd been nourishing the same idea myself. Who wouldn't want to be the next Ed Miller after all? Oh well, now it's actually going to get done instead of dreamt about. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[King Yao]

Sounds very interesting. He can probably pull it off because people are less afraid of their stats being used against them or for profit.

Have you tried it? I'm wondering if they give quality, accurate and useful feedback.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you tried it? I'm wondering if they give quality, accurate and useful feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sent in a database of some 35k hands today, so haven't had a chance to get the analysis yet. I'll get back on it.

[King Yao]

Levitt's paper on the NFL gambling markets was not good. He used poor data to come to incorrect conclusions. So I am not convinced he can do a good job analyzing poker data.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
Levitt's paper on the NFL gambling markets was not good. He used poor data to come to incorrect conclusions. So I am not convinced he can do a good job analyzing poker data.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm even less than "not convinced." Part of my evidence for this conclusion is that he asks for only 10k or more hands. Frankly, I don't think he has a clue about what he's getting into.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Levitt's paper on the NFL gambling markets was not good. He used poor data to come to incorrect conclusions. So I am not convinced he can do a good job analyzing poker data.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm even less than "not convinced." Part of my evidence for this conclusion is that he asks for only 10k or more hands. Frankly, I don't think he has a clue about what he's getting into.

[/ QUOTE ]

wouldn't this only apply to the "free analysis" you get emailed and not the main point of the project? For example, I have fewer than 10k hands logged at pokerroom, yet I don't consider their excellent EV stats page to be inaccurate because of it.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Levitt's paper on the NFL gambling markets was not good. He used poor data to come to incorrect conclusions. So I am not convinced he can do a good job analyzing poker data.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm even less than "not convinced." Part of my evidence for this conclusion is that he asks for only 10k or more hands. Frankly, I don't think he has a clue about what he's getting into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which means that someone with a clue can still write the real version. 2+2 and PokerRoom could probably accomplish some fairly interesting datamining... *nudge nudge wink wink*

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you tried it? I'm wondering if they give quality, accurate and useful feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sent in a database of some 35k hands today, so haven't had a chance to get the analysis yet. I'll get back on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'll play a few hands at $1-$2 and intentionally make some modest, systematic errors. Then I'll submit them and see what they have to say.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'll play a few hands at $1-$2 and intentionally make some modest, systematic errors. Then I'll submit them and see what they have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity, but how would you go about challenging any claims this guy will make at the end of his project which you deem incorrect? I don't mean to offend; I'm genuinely curious, and can only see this project as a Good Thing overall - if he actually comes up with something useful and it helps people to understand the game better, great! If he just comes up with a bunch of absurd conclusions that help people to understand the game better by understanding why they are absurd, that's great too. But it just seems to me that there would be an awfully great temptation for a theoretician to hear Levitt say something like "based on this and that data, I conclude that you should come in for a raise with A9o UTG" and simply reply "hogwash!" without ever properly addressing the argument, you know? (in fact, upon consulting gocee, that is a conceivable argument that a solely statistics-minded person might make, since A9o will win 1.9% more than its fair share of pots against 9 random hands)

[Kama45]

Judging from his last book, this work will probably try to appeal to the masses including/especially non-poker players. Even if all his analysis and data-collecting methods are 100% sound, there is unlikely going to be anything useful for a typical 2+2 poster. Hopefully, I am wrong.