The Linear Equality Fallacy

[AlanBostick]

I maintain my spreadsheets and you don't, so you aren't in a position to say anything about what conclusions can or cannot be drawn from my dataset.

I have a graduate degree in experimental physics, and I suspect you don't, so I suspect I might maybe possibly understand rather more about analysis of noisy data than you do.

Would it shut you up if, rather than "$50/hour" I had said "$47 +/- $23" for the two years' data and "$48 +/- $40" for the three weeks' data?

OP was using a lot of fancy ten-dollar words, not very adeptly, to say something that either was total nonsense or nothing more deep than "every amplifier has its rail."

[damaniac]

I'll be nice, I swear.

[ QUOTE ]
Over the past two years I've been winning about $50/hour in my local $15-$30 limit HE game, playing about two hours every week on average.


[/ QUOTE ]

30 hands per hour x 2 hours per week x 52 weeks per year x 2 years = 6240 hands. That's nothing. Nothing. Unless you totally mistated how much you play, you can conclude next to nothing about your winrate over that many hands. I don't have a degree in anything involving math, but I know that.

[ohnonotthat]

I failed physics, TWICE, but c'mon.

The total amount of time you describe is less than 2 weeks play for the typical full time pro.

I've seen empty chairs run hot for 100 hours; I've also seen some of the best in the game run ice cold for lengths of time 5 times as long.

In your defense, there is one thing that tends to be overlooked.

You are at the very least far more likely than unlikely to win at this game for as long as you choose to play it; I'd much prefer to put my faith in someone who has run good for a fairly short period of time than in someone who has run poorly but [sic] "really does know what he's doing".

BTW, what does any of this have to do with the OP's contention that even that damned battery bunny will eventually show signs of slowing down ?

No lucid person would expect your results to sufffer due to an increase in playing time from 2 hrs/week to 20; if anything I'd think they would get better. Playing a real (3 to 6 hour) session allows your mind to fully adapt from physics to poker - something a 90 minute session might not allow for.

I believe the OP was saying that there is a non linear relationship between toal hours played and total dollars won - and I can see no way to question this.

Even if the raw number of hours is not so large as to cause one's play (focus) to suffer there is the stone cold fact that if I play 20 hours per week knowing that my profit from these sessions will represent most or even all of my income I'm sure as hell going to choose the 20 hours at which I am firing on all pistons; this option is not available to someone who spends all his time at the cardroom or in front of his computer.

Sincerely,

- Chris