Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm about 50 posts behind, but please don't use the baseball analogy.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe also an analogy to another sport--"This is like a player who can't get a hit in A ball suddenly leading the league in hitting in the majors."

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm grunching and I don't know if the letter has been sent but this is gold. Analogies, analogies, analogies is key.


[/ QUOTE ]

Analagies yes, but pick a good one. The thing is, some schmoe from the minors coming up and tearing up the ball and leading the leading the league in homers happens all the time. ALL the time. Using this analagy with anyone who is familiar with baseball statistics will say "some fish ran hot" rather than "something impossible happened", and I don't think that's what you want.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, a better baseball analogy would be "we picked some fat, sloppy fan from the stands, with no technique or conditioning, gave him a bat, which he swings with one hand with his eyes closed, and so far he's at 28 consecutive home runs and counting"

[suzzer99]

That one is pretty good Nath. Although I still like my lousy bowler bowling 10 perfect games in a row analogy. I think most people can relate to that.

[Punker]

How about this analogy.

It's like someone going to a golf course with a hockey stick to hit every shot and shooting 59.

The analogy shouldn't stress the unlikelihood of an unskilled person doing well - it should stress the impossibility of playing *in a certain manner* and having incredible success over an extended period. While it might be possible to hit some good shots, or maybe even make a par or two with a hockey stick, you couldn't play perfectly over 18 holes.

[ZOMG_RIGGED!]

Canadian Golf?

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Enough with the earn rate stuff!

It's enough to cause some suspicion, but not relevant to the main argument, which is HOW he got there, which is where we get the 10^20 estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting approach, I have read several post that suggest their main argument for believing this is a cheat is the earn rate together with river aggression. Thats what they consider the best proof to prove a cheat beyond a reasonable doubt. But you don't think so obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

The win rate is the smoke, the river aggression is the fire.

[krumeluren]

[ QUOTE ]
The win rate is the smoke, the river aggression is the fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but river aggression can just be the result of an idiot donk saying to himself I will try a new approach for a few hundred hands, I will never call a river bet.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]


Thanks for the update. There is a big problem though with your approach that you might not have thought about.

Your are trying to estimate a persons win rate from a small sample of hand where he obviously runs extremely hot. This means that the cards did not fall in a very representative manner and your confidence interval is only valid when you hit your cards that good.

I suggest that you use another approach instead. Say that this person has a negative expected winning of -20ptbb/100 with a SD of 270ptbb. What are the probability that such a player makes 284ptbb/100 in 190 hands? And when you have that probability, try to estimate the probability that such person could be found in the poker community's collective PT-.DBase for High stakes poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've made some craptastic posts in this thread and resolved to just stay out of it since I'm just a non-balla mirco-stakes grinder, but I couldn't stay away.

But Krum, every post of yours just tilts me too hard.

Its so obvious that:

* you don't understand the significance of the evidence presented
* you don't understand the math involved to analyze it
* every point you make has been gone over 10x already

Please stop.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The win rate is the smoke, the river aggression is the fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but river aggression can just be the result of an idiot donk saying to himself I will try a new approach for a few hundred hands, I will never call a river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

And get it right 50 times in a row, the first time he tries this brilliant strategy, after moving up 100x in stakes? Please.

[cracks]

You guys suck at analogies. I think a good one would be chess.

This is like a 1000 rated amateur suddenly beating grandmasters. It just isn't possible.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys suck at analogies. I think a good one would be chess.

This is like a 1000 rated amateur suddenly beating grandmasters. It just isn't possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your input, but there is virtually no luck in chess. So I guess you suck even worse than us.