[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They aren't ignoring the hard numbers. The numbers tell you that there is a 95% chance that he is a winner. Lots of people play the 30/60, he seems to be a lottery winner, that 5% one. Even if you put his stats into 99% or 99.99% confidence intervals the argument is still valid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Math is hard. The numbers don't say there's a 95% chance he's a winner. They say something else entirely.
When you start asserting that he's a lottery winner, the question then becomes:
"How do we know that James isn't the lottery winner?"
- Andrew
www.pokerstove.com
[/ QUOTE ]
Because James can look in his database and see himself outplaying this guy hand after hand?
Because James' stats are generally in alignment with the
vast majority of winning poker players?
Because James has undoubtedly maintained his success far longer than 100k hands?
Shall I continue?