Are you hitting your sets? - Page 5

Dennisa · #41 07-05-2007, 03:25 AM

Using Binomial distribution, you have a 2% chance of hitting 17 or less sets in 216 pairs that have seen the flop. Rare but not impossible.

Johnes Benjamin · #42 07-05-2007, 03:32 AM

52-0 will definitely put you towards the tail ends of a distribution!

phydaux · #43 07-05-2007, 04:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you've made an error filtering the results as you may have folded some pocket pairs preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are people who fold pocket pairs preflop? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Dennisa · #44 07-05-2007, 03:49 PM

Getting shutout 52 straight times should happen about 1-1000 occurances.

QTip · #45 07-12-2007, 12:03 AM

Shot at 2007-07-11

I'm guessing this means that I'm running quite poorly. I'm excited about this, though because over the stretch here, I've run about 4.3ptbb/100. This is my 34k NL career.

Kos13 · #46 07-12-2007, 12:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Shot at 2007-07-11

I'm guessing this means that I'm running quite poorly. I'm excited about this, though because over the stretch here, I've run about 4.3ptbb/100. This is my 34k NL career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it seem weird to anyone else that ALL of our set-o-meter graphs have looked like this?

Rocco · #47 07-12-2007, 06:00 AM

No offense to OP, because I'm pretty sure he just messed around with the tracker and came across some numbers. But I think it started an avanlanche among others here, who would do much better if they spent their time analyzing what's really a leak in their game, instead of by numbers "proving" that they're not hitting sets enough or have their AA losing to KK more often than cracking opponents AA with KK.

Just keep this in mind, folks. Don't go out of line trying to come up with numbers that does't match with the odds. I'm hitting sets like never before, so I'm content [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

QTip · #48 07-12-2007, 08:42 AM

Rocco:

Running this graph takes like 30 seconds. I don't think anyone's trying to "prove" anything with it....it's just interesting is all.

chicken10der · #49 07-12-2007, 09:00 AM

i'd be so glad if i never had to read another post that goes "you'd be better off trying to find leaks in your game than ____" (complaining about nits/shortstackers, posting in bbv, whackin it, etc)

Rocco · #50 07-12-2007, 10:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Rocco:

Running this graph takes like 30 seconds. I don't think anyone's trying to "prove" anything with it....it's just interesting is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the time it takes to run that exact graph. Can't you see by just looking at some posts that people take this seriously and that it has inspired some to search for figures that are off the line odds-wise? I can totally see it in some posts... As I said, I get the intentions of the OP and many repliers in this thread have also caught that. It's just a reminder for some (as in not all of you) to focus on their real flaws.