DERB

[mattrado]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I don't even play 3/6 let alone 30/60 but since this thread has actually forced someone to register in order to post in it, I thought I would chime in, too. I think you're missing the point of the analogy. No one is saying that you have to assume that the coins are all fair before you do the experiment. Let's say that you take 1000 coins and you flip them each 1000 times and you DON'T know whether they are fair or not. If you take the one that lands on heads most and try to make an argument that it MUST be weighted to land on heads more often by building a confidence interval, that argument will be wrong. That argument will be wrong because even IF all of the coins were fair coins, you would STILL expect one of them to land on heads a lot more often than tails. And by selecting that particular one to analyse, you are biasing your analysis. So you can't construct a confidence interval around its results by (implicitly) assuming that it was randomly chosen. That is what the analogy is supposed to show: that having someone perform extraordinarily can be explained even IF they are no different from anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you end with here, but MY POINT is that you DON'T know that he is "no different from anyone else." Additionally, I agree that you can't look at it as a completely isolated incident, but going to the other end of the spectrum and just assuming that the guy HAS to be a fluke is ignorant and teaches us nothing. If you're going base your argument and analysis on the assumption that he is just a bad player on a hot streak, then you're not going to learn why he might be beating the game in a different way that you are.

Respectfully,

Matt

[TheWorstPlayer]

No one was using the coin example to prove that he was NOT a winner, it just illustrated how confidence intervals, as they were being used, can't prove that he IS a winner. The arguments that he is not a winner came from logical analysis of how he plays his hands.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I don't even play 3/6 let alone 30/60 but since this thread has actually forced someone to register in order to post in it, I thought I would chime in, too. I think you're missing the point of the analogy. No one is saying that you have to assume that the coins are all fair before you do the experiment. Let's say that you take 1000 coins and you flip them each 1000 times and you DON'T know whether they are fair or not. If you take the one that lands on heads most and try to make an argument that it MUST be weighted to land on heads more often by building a confidence interval, that argument will be wrong. That argument will be wrong because even IF all of the coins were fair coins, you would STILL expect one of them to land on heads a lot more often than tails. And by selecting that particular one to analyse, you are biasing your analysis. So you can't construct a confidence interval around its results by (implicitly) assuming that it was randomly chosen. That is what the analogy is supposed to show: that having someone perform extraordinarily can be explained even IF they are no different from anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you end with here, but MY POINT is that you DON'T know that he is "no different from anyone else." Additionally, I agree that you can't look at it as a completely isolated incident, but going to the other end of the spectrum and just assuming that the guy HAS to be a fluke is ignorant and teaches us nothing. If you're going base your argument and analysis on the assumption that he is just a bad player on a hot streak, then you're not going to learn why he might be beating the game in a different way that you are.

Respectfully,

Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
RIG I think its time to bow down!

[/ QUOTE ]

I bow for no pokerplayer [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

By I do thank JV, Justin and Eric for the lessons.

[ipconfig]

is it me? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
is it me? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

are you asking if you are DERB? If so, PM me your party handle and I will tell you.

[BradL]

[ QUOTE ]

Either he's a cheater, or he's amazing. It's just statistically impossible to run THAT well over 150k hands if you're a bad player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im a stat undergrad / data mining grad student. this statement alone shows you dont really understand statistics. BTW if you cannot figure out his pp screen name then you have no business asking for it.

Edit: I appologize, Im a little drunk.

-Brad

[joker122]

would someone be willing to write a quick thread summary? i mainly want to know if anyone has figured out what his deal is.

[roy_miami]

James,

You seem to have played alot of hands vs this guy, whats your won from/lost to stats against him. I haven't seen anybody ever discuss this stat before so maybe its meaningless, I'm just curious if this guy is taking money from the TAGs as well as donks or just the donks.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
would someone be willing to write a quick thread summary? i mainly want to know if anyone has figured out what his deal is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres a bad player who was been winning at about 3bb/100 for about 100k hands. Some people think he cheats, others think he is good, others think he is breakeven or small winner running good, yet others think he is actually a losing player running good.

Andrew Prock is an idiot.

James282 rules.

NLSoldier rules too.

There was some argument about DERB's confidence interval regarding his winrate and Justin A and Elindauer showed why we cannot really use these confidence intervals to analyze DERB.

I think I got it all. Still no real conclusions.

edit-Oh yeah, J V rules as well. Not only did he start this awesome thread, he also added some nice Vida pics [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[A_C_Slater]

I have a question. How many other Party 30/60 players have stats of 3BB/100 or more over 100k hands? And what are their stats?