|
|
#121
02-01-2006, 10:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Take that, Gigabet!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] My first 15 $20s of the month: 5 1sts 2 2nds 1 3rd 53% ITM 100% ROI SHIP IT!! [/ QUOTE ] Prove It [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Ok, how's this for proof: I just finished 3rd in one and when I loaded the result into SnG Tracker, my February ROI went down [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] 
|
|
#122
02-01-2006, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New Official Gigabet Crap thread.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] it is fine to question, but to say someone is lying just because you "dont think" it is possilbe. I would not believe someone who said they could make the final table in the 2003 and 2004 main event. But it happened. [/ QUOTE ] Without getting into the specifics of the discussion here, there's a difference between what Gigabet claimed and this fact about Harrington. It is very easy to verify if someone made it to the final table of WSOP twice in a row. It isn't easy at all to verify a person's ROI for long periods of time without him giving you all the relevant hardcore data about it. So when someone, _anyone_, (not only Gigabet, it happened with others here and on other forums around 2+2) claims that he's having X ROI, or Y BB/H at some game, and the number looks extremely unlikely, this person is usuly flamed until they prove somehow that it was true, or admit that there was some mistake in their calculation, record-keeping, or whatever. The whole idea of these forums is to be able to rely on the information you read. When you encounter what seems to be very unrealistic information, it is very important to go rather deeply into it, especially when it comes from a highly respected poker player, who posts here. Personally I have all the respect for Gigabet as a poker player and a theoretician of the game, and even though I disagree with some of the things he writes around here, there's nothing particularly personal about not-believeing the ROI numbers he was talking about, until we are proven otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] Im not as good at the math here but what were the odds of Harrington doing that? 2003 was what 800+ players so basically 10/800 or 1/80 times 2004 which was 2500 players or 10/2500 or 1/250. That is something like 1 in 20000 chance. Im curious how many 2+2ers would have flamed anyone who had posted that this was possible? Raymer made 1 out of 2500 ...he won or 1/2500 times what 27 out of 5500 or 27/5500 which is a REALLY big number against that happening. Yet everyone jumps all over Gigabet for making the claim that he did what he did in those 1000 game sets. Seems like the odds were similarly against him. Someone can figure out the exact odds but the prob of those two things ocurring in the WSOP ME were pretty astonomical yet they happened. Makes you wonder if maybe mathematical expecation doesnt play as big a role in poker as do other factors Do you think it was any easier for Raymer or Harrington than Gigabet to accomplish thier improbable feats? Food for thought
|
|
#124
02-01-2006, 11:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New Official Gigabet Crap thread.
without speculating on accuracy...
if you go by what curtains said, then it was 1 in a million to get 60% over 1k in 215s if you go by what you said, then it was 1 in 20,000 for harrington to make the 03/04 final tables is 1/20k 'similiar' to 1/million?
|
|
#129
02-01-2006, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New Official Gigabet Crap thread.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] it is fine to question, but to say someone is lying just because you "dont think" it is possilbe. I would not believe someone who said they could make the final table in the 2003 and 2004 main event. But it happened. [/ QUOTE ] Without getting into the specifics of the discussion here, there's a difference between what Gigabet claimed and this fact about Harrington. It is very easy to verify if someone made it to the final table of WSOP twice in a row. It isn't easy at all to verify a person's ROI for long periods of time without him giving you all the relevant hardcore data about it. So when someone, _anyone_, (not only Gigabet, it happened with others here and on other forums around 2+2) claims that he's having X ROI, or Y BB/H at some game, and the number looks extremely unlikely, this person is usuly flamed until they prove somehow that it was true, or admit that there was some mistake in their calculation, record-keeping, or whatever. The whole idea of these forums is to be able to rely on the information you read. When you encounter what seems to be very unrealistic information, it is very important to go rather deeply into it, especially when it comes from a highly respected poker player, who posts here. Personally I have all the respect for Gigabet as a poker player and a theoretician of the game, and even though I disagree with some of the things he writes around here, there's nothing particularly personal about not-believeing the ROI numbers he was talking about, until we are proven otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] Im not as good at the math here but what were the odds of Harrington doing that? 2003 was what 800+ players so basically 10/800 or 1/80 times 2004 which was 2500 players or 10/2500 or 1/250. That is something like 1 in 20000 chance. Im curious how many 2+2ers would have flamed anyone who had posted that this was possible? Raymer made 1 out of 2500 ...he won or 1/2500 times what 27 out of 5500 or 27/5500 which is a REALLY big number against that happening. Yet everyone jumps all over Gigabet for making the claim that he did what he did in those 1000 game sets. Seems like the odds were similarly against him. Someone can figure out the exact odds but the prob of those two things ocurring in the WSOP ME were pretty astonomical yet they happened. Makes you wonder if maybe mathematical expecation doesnt play as big a role in poker as do other factors Do you think it was any easier for Raymer or Harrington than Gigabet to accomplish thier improbable feats? Food for thought [/ QUOTE ] A. You didn't understand my post. It wasn't about the odds of something or other happening or not happening. B. As was already stated, you don't seem to understand much with regard to statistics, and the comparisons and statements you make about "mathematical expecation" are ridiculous. No offence.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
