Yeah, sadly bad beats happen and it's easy to jump onto the 'rigged' or 'fix' conclusion poker isn't about waiting for monsters and going all-in. Sure there's a time and a place for that. I am pretty sure I have lost the majority of my AA hands - some due to bad play, some due to bad luck. If you don't trust a site find a site you do trust or take these stats into account to modify your play. Agree with others that a larger statistical size is warranted but what's the end game any way? Once you are all-in the risk is there.
abgvedr said:
I totally agree with that. It takes a lot more hands to get more accurate statistics. The result after 1000 hands would interest me as well. :albertein
With a smaller immersion, by the way, the probability really doesn’t seem to be correct. :hmmmm:
There is something called sample size in statistics, if your sample is small it tends to give you wrong results, you have to deal with a much larger sample to give data that are close to the true percentages of correctness, for example, in the In the case of hands in Poker, the odds are so high and so many things to take into account that a sample of even a thousand hands would be very little and would give us little information. Greetings.
If I flip a coin 20 times and it lands on head 14 times, is the coin broken? Am I not flipping correctly? That's 70% that can't be right huh? Now what if I flipped that coin 20,000 times and it landed on heads 14,000 times. Is that a different story?
I think every one should know that you do not need millions of hands to make conclusions
Especially when the odds are very much in your favor
Yes obviously, the smaller amount of hands tested the larger the error or less accurate
But the higher your chance of winning (the outcome you are looking at) the greater the accuracy
Especially when the odds are very much in your favor
Yes obviously, the smaller amount of hands tested the larger the error or less accurate
But the higher your chance of winning (the outcome you are looking at) the greater the accuracy
Also I did the test based on speculation
After playing nearly every day for more than 3 years
Me test proved me right
I did the test for medium buy-ins, like 11 usd buy-in
So not a test where there is a of fishes shooting like crazy
Even in the latter case, my winnings should be more
I will continue do these test on my hands
Especially all ins
When I have a larger amount of results, I will share it
Because clarity and honesty must be addressed
Fairness must be managed these sites which claims to do so
I studied texas poker a lot
And was suprised what my overall outcomes were
Not to expecting calculations
After playing nearly every day for more than 3 years
Me test proved me right
I did the test for medium buy-ins, like 11 usd buy-in
So not a test where there is a of fishes shooting like crazy
Even in the latter case, my winnings should be more
I will continue do these test on my hands
Especially all ins
When I have a larger amount of results, I will share it
Because clarity and honesty must be addressed
Fairness must be managed these sites which claims to do so
I studied texas poker a lot
And was suprised what my overall outcomes were
Not to expecting calculations
Since only 16 hands were called, you can hardly make a statement. The variance in poker is high. With AA or KK you are only 80:20 ahead of any other pair. After all, you lose every fifth time. So AA or KK are not unbeatable. Especially when several players call. With 4 opponents, the win rate with AA is no longer 50%. But if you had played a million hands, you would also see that you win as often as the odds predict.
I don't really trust poker software either. But taking into account that you played a very low sample of hands, the results are very out of control.pokerdebit said:
But remember: luck still defines the champion, as strange as it may seem.
