Meta-Analysis Reminder/Update

[Irieguy]

In early November I solicited volunteers for a meta-analysis of SNG results.

The volunteers would have to be winning players (criteria already explained) who would agree to intend to play at least 500 SNGs from 11/1 through 12/25.

I have 35 volunteers, and Christmas is approaching.

If you volunteered, please remember that I will need you to submit your data to me even if you lost, and even if you quit. This is an "intent-to-play" prospective analysis.

I will send out individual PMs to all volunteers before Christmas to explain how to submit your results.

If everybody keeps their word, we will have around 20,000 SNGs worth of data over less than 2 months to look at... which will be cool.

For those of you involved, I look forward to your cooperation. For everyone else, I will post the analysis the moment I receive all of the data and compile it.

Irieguy

[tigerite]

Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[Winwood]

[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[skipperbob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please enlighten me?

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Heisenberg formula itself is highly technical, but a more general principle is that:

"The act of observing an object changes the behavior of that object."

A tragic example is when the writer Jon Krakauer went on an Everest climb *and told everyone there he was writing a book about it*.

The professional guides whose living depended on getting people to the top *may* have made a marginal decision to attempt the summit *because* they were being observed more intensely than usual.

Of course, it ended up that a bunch of people died.

The implication here is that the subjects in Irieguy's experiment may be trying to impress him, playing a different style than usual, and therefore the Abominable Snowman is getting them.

Irieguy was smart to promise to keep the results anonymous, but he will still know... and the pros might feel they let the group down somehow by contribuing their crappy results... which might make them go on tilt during a bad run to "catch up"... which might lead to even worse results.

Not saying any of this is true, but it's certainly possible.

[Newt_Buggs]

or they want to play really well so they're paying especially close attention to how they play and are avoinding FPS.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a serious point here - Irie, have you considered Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Heisenberg formula itself is highly technical, but a more general principle is that:

"The act of observing an object changes the behavior of that object."

A tragic example is when the writer Jon Krakauer went on an Everest climb *and told everyone there he was writing a book about it*.

The professional guides whose living depended on getting people to the top *may* have made a marginal decision to attempt the summit *because* they were being observed more intensely than usual.

Of course, it ended up that a bunch of people died.

The implication here is that the subjects in Irieguy's experiment may be trying to impress him, playing a different style than usual, and therefore the Abominable Snowman is getting them.

Irieguy was smart to promise to keep the results anonymous, but he will still know... and the pros might feel they let the group down somehow by contribuing their crappy results... which might make them go on tilt during a bad run to "catch up"... which might lead to even worse results.

Not saying any of this is true, but it's certainly possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression he just wanted results... I don't think he is intending anyone to send him HH's which you seem to be thinking.


Irie- I have stopped multitabling STTs for some time now (playing all cash and mtts, higher stts), I have data from a few steps and higher steps and some 555s on stars do you want those?

I also have about 400 215s recorded from around the start time of your experiment, I'll double check the date on them.

[Bonafone]

[ QUOTE ]
Shh, you've made me go on another downswing now. Damn you.

[/ QUOTE ]

luckily i'm taking a break for the holidays or I would be scared too. immediately after signing up I went on my first ever 50 buy in downswing. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[bennies]

Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[downtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for taking the trouble to do this, I'm eager to see the results! (I would have participated myself but I didn't qualify when you started soliciting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in the same boat as a 10-tabler. Also eager to see the results. I think leaving out 55s and below 10-tabling may be an oversight, as after extensively doing both, playing 8 & playing 10 are not that different in the 55s (the overwhelming bulk of my play).

In the 109s, I think there is a difference between 8 & 10 though, but that's anecdotal experience and I don't think I will try 10 enough to find out.