|
|
#491
01-07-2007, 02:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I own mike mautsow
Hello all. This is addressed to the panel, RE the new data
This new data is interesting, and in places puzzling. However, I believe it helps the panel make the correct decision. I believe we now have three independant dataminers, upon which we can make statistical assumptions. I'm going to break the data down into 5 sections (200/400, 50/100 HU, 50/100 6Max, 25/50 HU, 25/50 6Max), and analyse each of them. If any posters think i'm being biased I really would like to know, it's easy to see things your way even if they are not when undertaking something like this. One thing i'm going to do, and again comments please, is assume G2CU's data is either correct or biased against me if we have no other data source. After all, we can all agree that there is 0% chance he doctored his results AGAINST himself or TWP, but there is >0% chance he did the opposite. 200/400 stats. There is no doubt whatsoever on the validity of these stats. All four sources agree at a figure of -$52326. This is fact 50/100 HU. We have three sets of data, two that correlate and one that does not. G2CU and highstakes agree he was $-4050 while Chris has stats of -$3400 with 6 less hands. Since highstakes and Chris have posted their sessions completely, it's easy to see what's going on : highstakes has a 1 min HU session for -$650 which Chris doesn't have. -$4050, again, fact. 25/50 HU. We only have one source, G2CU's, which i'm willing to accept as correct. -$7037 25/50 6Max. We have two sources, Chris and G2CU, but Chris' data is much smaller and he has admitted to not being able to datamine all 25/50 tables. Even though G2CU's data has him winning more than Chris, it is clear his is more likely to be accurate. So I take his as fact..+$33241 Running total, -$30172 50/100 6Max. I've left this beast till the end because this is the main area of contention. Fortunately, all 4 of our datasources offer results here. G2CU's has him at +$40667, putting him over the 10K mark Chris has him at +$37809, landing him a couple thousand short. Highstakes and JCQ have him at +$30009, landing him way short. Again I must thank Highstakes and Chris for posting complete session numbers. All three of the dataminers agree almost exactly on the time spent at the tables, JCQ and highstakes have him playing 7.95 hours, while Chris has him playing 7.97 hours. So is it possible that Chris has managed to pick up a session that no one else has? As it turns out, that's exactly what's happened. Take a look at the session third from bottom on Chris' results. 1 min, 4 hands, +$7799. This session does not appear on highstakes' data. If you take 7799 from Chris' end result, 37809, you end up with 30010. Allowing for my dollar rounding, identical to highstakes and JCQ. Apart from this one session, all three dataminers agree excatly on the 50/100 6 max games, which if proven to be radically different from G2CU's results, is very strong evidence for my argument. Note that we now have three correlating results and one that sticks out like a sore thumb. G2CU's results are much different, less complete and simply do not make sense when faced with three independant sets of data all saying the same thing. Now, we have three results, two which are identical and one that is almost. Normally we'd go with the two identical ones, but we know PT does not make sessions up so i'm willing to go with Chris' stats, which have G2CU up $+37809 for 50/100 6Max. For those not keeping a running count, the total, after analysis I believe is generous to G2CU and giving him the benefit of the doubt in all cases, is +$7647. 
|
|
#494
01-07-2007, 03:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I own mike mautsow
So the title of this thread should actually read something along the lines of 'I Own Mike Matusow but Re-enforce My Unballerness by Doctoring My Stats'
Nh, ship Rolen his monies now plzthxbye.
|
|
#495
01-07-2007, 10:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I own mike mautsow
[ QUOTE ]
and please don't be a sore loser and try to wiggle your way outta this like you have trying to do for many posts. [/ QUOTE ] AWW SNAP 10K DATAMINE YO!?!?!?
|
|
#496
01-07-2007, 10:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I own mike mautsow
Proof
Some people gonna call you up Tell you something that you already know Proof Sane people go crazy on you Say ''No man, that was not The deal we made I got to go, I got to go'' Faith Faith is an island in the setting sun But proof, yes Proof is the bottom line for everyone
|
|
#497
01-07-2007, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I own mike mautsow
Both chris and rolen have done good analysis and I am impressed. I am certainly not taking anything personally here and I am certainly not trying to weasel out of anything. I am still convinced, however, that the data mining results are not an accurate reflection of the session results. If I were currently given the chance to either call the bet a push or to have the bet decided 100% for sure by FTP I would take the bet. In fact, I would be willing to pay money to do so.
The fact of the matter is that each additional set of data mined results changes the view of the results. For instance, if I asked the very simple question "What were g2cu's results from the session?" this cannot be answered in any way from the data mining. This principle of taking the piece of each data miner's results which has more hands, because it's more likely to be correct (which is a cornerstone of Rolen's thinking) makes sense on some level but on another level is completely unacceptable. It's essentially saying that we should take person A's results on section X, even though we know person A is inaccurate on section Z. And similarly for person B and section Z despite knowing that they were inaccurate on section X. My contention is that NODODY has all of the hands. Good2cu obviously does not. jcg obviously does not. Highstakes obviously does not. Chris obviously does not. In fact, nobody would even claim that they have captured all of the hands. How can someone resolve a bet on the results of a session if nobody even claims to have covered all hands from that session? We cannot. Obviously I have $1K at stake if we were to take the data mining results as being accurate, and I therefore have an incentive not to do so. But at the outset of the bet, Rolen had the same incentive were the initial results to come out in my favor, which is why we agreed on the standard of a complete set of identical stats to determine the winner. I'm sure were the data mined results coming out in the other direction, I would be making Rolen's arguments and he would be making mine. I hope in that case as well that people would realise that the standard of proof had not been met and the bet would be ruled a draw (at least until more data could potentially be found - at this point looking like it is only possible from FTP itself).
|
|
#498
01-07-2007, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I own mike mautsow
TWP,
You can see why people might think you're weaseling, but most can easily see you're not. It's just taking an in-depth analytical approach to the situation. Sometimes just that is enough for somebody to say, 'ZOMG look at U trying to weasel, with all ur LOGIC and THINKING and ANALYZING' Interestingly, however, before the bet I assumed G2cu had won 10k+, but now have abandoned that thought completely. Slightly off topic anecdote: I had an argument with a roommate a long time ago, and he actually said this, verbatim, 'Every time somebody accuses you of something, you always start explaining things and making points about why it's ok.' He said this in a serious, accusatory tone. I was flabbergasted.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
