[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that James can refute those statistics because "he knows" or because of a few anomalous hands is lunacy.
Simple logic says James doesn't know what he's talking about.
www.pokerstove.com
[/ QUOTE ]
A- it's not "a few" hands.
B- several posters have stated that this guy is not playing well.
What people are saying is "look at the numbers, he must be a winner"
But really everybody else is saying "we have numbers over a much longer period of time that tell us that playing like this means you won't win long term".
So to paint the position of James and others as going strickly on annecdotal evidence and ignoring hard numbers just isn't correct. The fact is that based on everything the 2+2 community knows and understands about how the stats relate to winning this guy just shouldn't be making money at the rate he is.
[/ 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.