Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[tireuw]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen one post suggesting that the player might have had made a game strategy decision to not call a river bet ever. Everybody just assumed he didn't call because he could see the hole cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is: He is correctly raising when he has the best hand and correctly folding when he has the worst hand nearly every time

[krumeluren]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is: He is correctly raising when he has the best hand and correctly folding when he has the worst hand every time

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not true and you know it. There are a number of HHs where he doesn't do that. Why deny it? But since you also are convinced you don't want to talk about those. And whenever some one who is convinced does it they have explanaitions: maybe the terminal wasnt working. Maybe he didn't log into his superuser account. Maybe he miss clicked maybee he ..... Because we know he could se the hole cards.

[Wolfskin]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the update. There is a big problem though with your approach that you might not have thought about.

Your are trying to estimate a persons win rate from a small sample of hand where he obviously runs extremely hot. This means that the cards did not fall in a very representative manner and your confidence interval is only valid when you hit your cards that good.

I suggest that you use another approach instead. Say that this person has a negative expected winning of -20ptbb/100 with a SD of 270ptbb. What are the probability that such a player makes 284ptbb/100 in 190 hands? And when you have that probability, try to estimate the probability that such person could be found in the poker community's collective PT-.DBase for High stakes poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the math already yourself right? I just won't provide a probability with your assumptions, they aren't realistic.

I included an outlier in my calculation, which I should not have and 1000bb/67 hands don't mean you have that over 100 hands, so the standard deviation is more like 70 and not 270.

We also can't use a -20bb/100 mean, because the sample size we are using includes approximately 500 hands, so we must use a 400bb/100 mean.

[ QUOTE ]
That cannot bet true with a SD of 270ptbb/100 I'm sure. Your other calculations suggest a much larger CI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah you are right, this is for a STD of 65 for a winning loose aggressive player on pokerstars.