#1
|
|||
|
|||
Least common PPs (lc/nc)
I was just checking out my PT stats, and over ~22K hands, AA is my least common PP. Not only that, but it is followed IN ORDER by KK, QQ, JJ, & TT. My list goes like this:
AA - 53 KK - 62 QQ - 73 JJ - 78 TT - 83 99 - 118 88 - 105 77 - 93 66 - 94 55 - 97 44 - 103 33 - 102 22 - 93 Kinda weird, huh? What are your most/least common PPs? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
standard deviation + small sample size.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
[ QUOTE ]
standard deviation + small sample size. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. There is plenty of data to use a chi-squared test on this data. This even ignores the AA-TT ordering that he has observed. From some rough and ready calculations I have done, it is highly improbable that a fair deal will result in the card distribution as outlined in the first post. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
mines the opposite (lucky for me)
AA -168 KK - 161 66 - 158 JJ - 155 99 - 154 all the way down to TT - 136. Just the way it goes i guess |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
[ QUOTE ]
From some rough and ready calculations I have done, it is highly improbable that a fair deal will result in the card distribution as outlined in the first post. [/ QUOTE ] From some rough and ready calculations, you are a noob. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. There is plenty of data to use a chi-squared test on this data. This even ignores the AA-TT ordering that he has observed. From some rough and ready calculations I have done, it is highly improbable that a fair deal will result in the card distribution as outlined in the first post. [/ QUOTE ] HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] standard deviation + small sample size. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. There is plenty of data to use a chi-squared test on this data. This even ignores the AA-TT ordering that he has observed. From some rough and ready calculations I have done, it is highly improbable that a fair deal will result in the card distribution as outlined in the first post. [/ QUOTE ] It's amazing that you set a null hypothesis before getting this data, and then a sample just showed up for you! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Wrong. There is plenty of data to use a chi-squared test on this data. This even ignores the AA-TT ordering that he has observed. From some rough and ready calculations I have done, it is highly improbable that a fair deal will result in the card distribution as outlined in the first post. [/ QUOTE ] HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA [/ QUOTE ] Please elaborate. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
[ QUOTE ]
It's amazing that you set a null hypothesis before getting this data, and then a sample just showed up for you! [/ QUOTE ] The null hypothesis is that it is equally likely that each rank pair occur. Is there something wrong with this reasoning? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Least common PPs (lc/nc)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's amazing that you set a null hypothesis before getting this data, and then a sample just showed up for you! [/ QUOTE ] The null hypothesis is that it is equally likely that each rank pair occur. Is there something wrong with this reasoning? [/ QUOTE ] You should come up with the hypothesis, THEN gather data, rather than the other way around. Otherwise you have a bias problem, since this sample was posted only because it was weird. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|