Probable?

[Gubus]

Addressing some of the questions...
Tracked hands are any under pair vs overcards situation, me or another player(s) all-in , only pre-flop. Sample probably does include some 3 (or more) players, but just a handful at most. Basically hands when no one can make a decission, and watching the cards fall. And there certainly have been hands that I won without going to showdown, but I only tracked this one very definable situation. I actually show an overall profit playing (very minute, maybe 1% or less I imagine, and I play such micro limit that the $ isn't significant), and that's not the point. It's the results that are so unusual.
Accuracy wise, for the latest sample I quite literally would sit down with pen in hand and wait for one of these hands to occur. Unless I experience "catatonic moments" when I win and don't record them all, the numbers are right on.

[pzhon]

I'm willing to bet thousands of dollars that you are misreporting your experiences. Do you have any objective electronic records covering hundreds of contiguous tournaments which can be reviewed by someone else?

[Perestroika]

he could request hhs and someone could import them into pokertracker.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
he could request hhs and someone could import them into pokertracker.

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be one objective method, but it would spoil the fun of someone who wants to claim to be the least lucky player in the world, who nevertheless comes out slightly ahead.

Again, I'm willing to bet that Gubus's statements are wrong, and that if he has actually played a lot, then he has won far more coinflips than he claims. I say this so that when Gubus refuses to back his extraordinary claims with money, it will be easier for people to dismiss them, since it will be clear than Gubus doesn't believe his own words.

[sickofants]

Those sorts of numbers are more typical of pair vs. pair statistics - with you holding the lower pair. What you are trying to tell us is almost the equivalent of "I have managed to get all-in with an underpair to an overpair 512 times and I still make a slight profit even though 5 out of 6 times I make a set, I lose the pot". If what you say is accurate, then we a forced to believe a whole host of other statical improbabilities that account for your slight profit. Do you bluff with 90% success or get dealt pocket aces once every five hands? Something pretty phenomenal has to happen.

I am forced to believe that you're having a bit of a laugh at our expense or that you have either misrecorded or misinterpreted some of the statistics you have collected. If you're not fooling around, I hope I have convinced you that you must be mistaken. If you take advice from the posts above, you might be able to find your error.

[Gubus]

A little clarification ... I spend as much time playing limit cash games, and turn a small profit. (Again micro limit, but dollar amount isn't the point here...I play a lot of chess for no money, I just enjoy the game play). SitnGo (or any tournament) NL format is where these seemingly impossible things occur. I know this sounds very bizzare, but that's exactly why I posted. Just looking for a little insight, and from the responses it's as creepy as it seems to me.