Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="vinnie, post: 3812967, member: 95995"]
z-score = how many standard deviations a data point is from the mean.  I have prefaced the numbers with that, from your data.  This is the same thing I was talking about before, I just wasn't using this term.

I have 20,087 hands of tournament play, here are my results:

POCKET PAIRS
[code]Cards   #    Expected
Any PP 1187    1182  (z-score 0.16)
AA       93      91       (z-score 0.22)
KK       77      91       (z-score 1.46)
QQ       98      91      (z-score 0.75) 
JJ       73      91        (z-score 1.88)
TT      106      91      (z-score 1.59)
99       82      91       (z-score 0.93)
88       83      91       (z-score 0.83)
77       98      91       (z-score 0.75)       
66       98      91       (z-score 0.75)
55       94      91       (z-score 0.33)
44       94      91       (z-score 0.33)
33      106      91      (z-score 1.59)
22       85      91       (z-score 0.62)

FS      107     100 ( I saw 849 flops with PP; 849/8.5)
(Flopped Set)[/code]

I am not sure if you mean flopped set, or flopped set or better.  I suspect you mean set or better, as that is the 7.5-1 number.  I don't know if you filtered for that, or excluded quads and full houses.  If you did filter for set or better (aka, hitting one of your cards) then your results of 107 are only 0.77 standard deviations from the mean.  If you filtered for exactly a set and not quads or boats, you expect 91.5 flops and would be 1.72 standard deviations from the mean.  I suspect you meant the first, but even the second is within normal expectations.

Not very far off, less than 2 standard deviations.

SUITED
[code]Cards           #       Expected
ANY           4686      [S]4671[/S] 4726   (z-score 0.67)
Saw Flop      1582       N/A
Flop Flush    14          13             (z-score 0.19)
Flop 4F       186        [S]174[/S] 173     (z-score 1.04)
[/code]

There were a couple errors with the expected numbers, but they were minor and don't change much.  In any case, your numbers here are perfectly in the expected range.

I don't know what you were doing wrong with the calculations.  Either way, I ran the numbers.  There's nothing here that shocks me.  Your data is very close to my data for a similar sample size (20k hands each).  I would say it was "shockingly" close, but this is exactly the sort of thing that isn't shocking.  Even though the hands were played on completely different sites, they represent a random distribution and show up as expected. :D
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us