Least common PPs (lc/nc)

kak1154 · #1 01-16-2006, 09:19 PM

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?

nuts · #2 01-16-2006, 10:22 PM

standard deviation + small sample size.

Gauss · #3 01-16-2006, 11:08 PM

[ 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.

Scottery · #4 01-16-2006, 11:13 PM

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

Banks2334 · #5 01-16-2006, 11:17 PM

[ 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.

CallMeIshmael · #6 01-16-2006, 11:49 PM

[ 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

OrangeKing · #7 01-17-2006, 12:23 AM

[ 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!

Gauss · #8 01-17-2006, 12:31 AM

[ 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.

Gauss · #9 01-17-2006, 12:38 AM

[ 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?

OrangeKing · #10 01-17-2006, 12:54 AM

[ 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.