US States
NJ Online Casinos
WV Online Casinos
PA Online Casinos
Michigan Online Casinos
Online Casino California
Online Casino Arizona
Online Casino NY
Real Money Casinos
Fastest Payout Casinos
Mobile Casino Apps
New Online Casinos
Casino Payment Methods
Sweepstakes
Sweepstakes apps
No deposit bonus
Daily login bonus
Sweepstakes games
Crown Coins
Funrize
Hello Millions
High 5 Casino
Jackpota Casino
Mcluck
MegaBonanza
PlayFame
Pulsz
RealPrize
Stake.us
Sweepstakes coins
Awards
Search forums
Free Games
Free Blackjack
Free Online Roulette
Free Slots
Bonuses
No Deposit Bonus
Crown Coins Promo Code
Funrize Primo Code
Hello Millions Promo Code
High 5 Casino Promo Code
Jackpota Promo Code
McLuck Promo Code
MegaBonanza Promo Code
Pulsz Promo Code
RealPrize Promo Code
Stake.us Promo Code
Games
Online Slots
Blackjack
Roulette
Poker
CardsChat Freerolls
How to Play Poker
Poker Hands
Poker Strategy
Free Online Poker Game
Poker Bonuses
Poker Tools
Poker Podcast
Poker School
Forum
News
Log in
Join
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Install the app
Install
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
re: The Elusive Million Hand Sample Analysis
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="vinnie, post: 3812029, member: 95995"] The sample size is critical. But, if someone has a 5k hand sample where things are very wrong, it is at least a starting point. We expect some 5k hand samples to be several standard deviations from the mean, simply because over billions of hands there will be some 5k chunks in there that are far away from the mean. If there wasn't, we would know something was up because the data wasn't following a normal distribution. Sample size should always be mentioned. What we tend to find, and I have read many threads on 2+2 and elsewhere on this, is that people claiming it is rigged don't actually produce any data that supports their claims. When you have people posting their analysis of their 37k hands played, they find that it doesn't look weird at all. If it was rigged, it is very weird that everyone who has used their actual records to look for it happens to be part of the group it is not rigged for or against. If you have 100 different people talking about their 20k hand database statistics, you're looking at 2 million hands. [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4346402/[/url] And, I mistyped. This study was for nearly 77 million distinct hands, not 37 million. I have no idea where the 37 came from, my only defense is that I was tired. It is a very good study, and they make no mention of finding unusual distributions of hands/flops/etc. Unfortunately, they did not explicitly look for such things, so we can't be sure they didn't miss them. I am going to look for more of these studies, but this post is growing large and I will post what I find below. Note: There was one, years back, that was exactly like what everyone is talking about. I remember reading it. It was a website that analyzed a million+ hands and looked for anomalies. It didn't find anything. That site seems to be gone now, and I can't find any mirrors. So, I know it sounds like we're all making up this statement, but it was a big deal when the site came out and we're probably recalling the same thing. Alright, 20k is not a huge sample, but it is enough that you can at least look at some of your results. For example, are you getting the right amount of pairs? [LIST=1] [*]Figure how many pairs you should have: #_of_hands / 17 [*]How much you expect that to vary: 0.23529411764 * sqrt( #_of_hands) [*]Figure how many of each pair you should have: #_of_hands / 221 [*]How much you expect that to vary: 0.06711491843 * sqrt( #_of_hands) [/LIST] From my tournament play (7,367 hands) -- as I only play hold'em when I play tournaments and I don't play very many. And, I have no tracking for BOL, so those tournaments don't count. [LIST=1] [*]Number of pairs: 7367 / 17 = 433.35 [*]Should vary by: 20.2 [*]Number of pairs I should have: 7367 / 221 = 33.33 [*]Should vary by 5.76 [/LIST] Actual Pairs: 406. That's 27.35 away from expected. Divide that by how much I expect it to vary, it is 1.35 standard deviations away. That's pretty normal. Numbers less than 3 are normal. Greater than 3 are rare and may indicate a problem or sample size issues. Each Pair: [LIST] [*]AA: 40 [*]KK: 28 [*]QQ: 34 [*]JJ: 36 [*]TT: 30 [*]99: 36 [*]88: 29 [*]77: 33 [*]66: 37 [*]55: 19 [*]44: 23 [*]33: 31 [*]22: 30 [/LIST] You can see that most of these are right on top of the expected value and easily +/- 5.76 away from the calculated value. We really only need to look at the highest and lowest counts, to see how they faired. (40-33.33)/5.76 = 1.16 which is perfectly normal. (33.33-19)/5.76 = 2.49 which is the biggest number we have seen. But, there is a 6.39% chance of it happening. It's not that unlikely. Just looking at this we can determine that I have gotten fewer total pairs than I expected--although I got AA more times--but nothing was outside the normal distribution of probabilities. And this is a very small sample. It is at least a starting point. You could easily do this with your ~20k hands, and see how the numbers come out for you. Does it determine anything with 100% certainty? No. But, it gives you a starting point. If you have numbers that are way out of line, we can determine how likely it is that you have a sample that far out of line based on the sample size. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Poker Discussion
General Poker
re: The Elusive Million Hand Sample Analysis
Top