|
|
#21
10-01-2007, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: People and their money.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have over 30 million hands in PokerTracker and when i parse out those people who have less than 10k hands, i still find more than 30% are total winners. I believe 5-10% is too low a guess. [/ QUOTE ] Selection bias. Winners will tend to play more hands than losers [/ QUOTE ] I assume you have data to prove this? I'm not denying it, but it would be interesting to see this claim backed up with evidence that is not susceptible to the same noise that... well, you get the point. 
|
|
#22
10-02-2007, 06:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: People and their money.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm aware of the noise. I'm also aware that there is no fixed threshold above which variance disappears. Furthermore, i'm aware that the best indicator of the population mean is the sample mean, however small the sample might be. If you believe the sample mean to be different, then the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. [/ QUOTE ] OK, you sound annoyed. You shouldn't be. Yes, I agree that the best estimator of the true mean for a continuous variable is the sample mean. If we were looking at winrates, or VPIP figures across your database, we could agree that the observed mean is a good estimate for the true one. However, in this case we're not looking at a population mean. "30% winning players" is not a mean across any variable but an observation about the observed winrate distribution. If you take a read through this old thread there is a discussion of this by me and other people that I believe you will find helpful.
|
|
#23
10-02-2007, 08:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: People and their money.
No, i'm not annoyed. Sorry if it sounded like i was. Thanks for the link.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
