Why I hate "Look at my 500-SNG penis" posts

[microbet]

Since you are replying to my post you must be talking about strippers.

How many strippers did your wife have to make out with before you knew it is sustainable?

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you are replying to my post you must be talking about strippers.

How many strippers did your wife have to make out with before you knew it is sustainable?

[/ QUOTE ]

READ THE [censored] FAQ!!!

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, those 3703 losers with winning records would be anywhere from 51% to 99.9% confident, statistically speaking, they were winning players. Go figure.

I could care less if people want to post stats, but I do find it annoying when it's done under the guise of "How am I doing?" It's a lot like the guy with a 12" dong stepping out of the gym shower and asking everyone if he's shrinking a little because the hot water heater is broken. No one wants to answer, nor should they. It's just a way to trick people into looking at your (e)penis.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was meant to be a rhetorical question. Sorry. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Mack

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, for the sake of demonstration, imagine if every 2+2 poster was actually a LOSING poker player. Assume for a moment that we all had a "true" expected ROI of -9%

I asked our resident Monte Carlo simulator expert to plug-in a -9% ROI for every registered 2+2 user and have them play 500 SNGs.

How many "winners" would there be? 3703
Would somebody have a 20% or better ROI? Yep


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is just wrong. The chance that you'd come out with 3703 winners is really small, and it isn't certain that any of them would have a 20% or better ROI. I assume you did one simulation and came up with this, but this conclusion is just horribly presumptuous.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, for the sake of demonstration, imagine if every 2+2 poster was actually a LOSING poker player. Assume for a moment that we all had a "true" expected ROI of -9%

I asked our resident Monte Carlo simulator expert to plug-in a -9% ROI for every registered 2+2 user and have them play 500 SNGs.

How many "winners" would there be? 3703
Would somebody have a 20% or better ROI? Yep


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is just wrong. The chance that you'd come out with 3703 winners is really small, and it isn't certain that any of them would have a 20% or better ROI. I assume you did one simulation and came up with this, but this conclusion is just horribly presumptuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I believe Irie's figures are pretty close to correct on this matter.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, My ROI at the STEP 5s is 41%.

[/ QUOTE ]

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, for the sake of demonstration, imagine if every 2+2 poster was actually a LOSING poker player. Assume for a moment that we all had a "true" expected ROI of -9%

I asked our resident Monte Carlo simulator expert to plug-in a -9% ROI for every registered 2+2 user and have them play 500 SNGs.

How many "winners" would there be? 3703
Would somebody have a 20% or better ROI? Yep


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, this is just wrong. The chance that you'd come out with 3703 winners is really small, and it isn't certain that any of them would have a 20% or better ROI. I assume you did one simulation and came up with this, but this conclusion is just horribly presumptuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I believe Irie's figures are pretty close to correct on this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

i second that notion. these numbers are pretty spot on. holla

[bennies]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if someone achieves something they are proud of, and post hopeing for a pat on the back and words of encouragement...i have no problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I don't either. Some people insist on being forum sheriffs around here. Becoming better at poker is as much psychological as it is technical, and if someone wants reassurance that they're on the right track, I'm happy to give it to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. And OP shouldn't worry that reading stat posts are -EV. The readers can figure this out for themselves without a shrink.

[bawcerelli]

It's not really the size of your ROI, it's how you use it.

[PrayingMantis]

Irieguy,

I generally agree with the points you make about 500 SNGs "bragging posts", which are very biased and do not give any real picture about anything (although they have some psychological role, both to the posters and readers).

But I think there's some logical loop in the way you present it in your post, which, in a way, is unavoidable, and thus I don't mean to point out a "flaw" in _your_ particular reasoning or something.

The point is, that even if all of 2+2 registered posters are -9% ROI players, there would still be a pretty healthy chance that some of them are in fact "long term" winners too, and very few might even be actually "crushing" the games (that is - there IS the possibility). Naturally confidence intervals will be different, etc, but still, even considering the existence of "long-term winners", you are clearly not able to say with 100% confidence whether this game is +EV at all - in the sense of being beatable for players with a particular set of abilities.

Therefore, there will always be some amount of "belief" involved here, a "belief" in the fairness and beatability of the game which you cannot "prove" or "refute", even if you take your advice only from "long term" winners (that is, unless you have some direct access to the RNG itself and full results of ALL players, and not even then, in some cases). And in that sense, and in a deep way, a 10K games sample is not essentially different than a 500 games sample, and if you take the "biased" element, and put it into posts about "winning over 10K games" (of course, they are very very few in comparison), you get basically the same picture as with the common 500 games posts, i.e, you could write the same post about those people posting those (rare, to say the least) "bragging 10K-games winning post", and all your points would still be valid.

...

Reading the above, I'm not sure I made myself clear, so I'll rephrase it:

X (number of) "500-games bragging posts" aren't much helpful in determining whether SNGs are beatable (and for what ROI, if at all), as much as Y number (Y<X by a big margin) of "10K-games bragging posts" aren't helpful.

BTW, those "10K-games bragging posts" posters don't neccessarily need to actually POST their "bragging posts", since they are simply the most prominent posters, that everybody "knows" they are winning over a long term. But surely if you consider the possibility that this is actually a forum that discusses some -EV game, there's a good chance that there would still be those few long-term winning players, and obvisouly, they'll be the most prominent, and a "proof" that this -EV game is actually beatable, and for what "win-rate".