Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="MrGoodFlop, post: 837538, member: 21274"]
There may not be any statistical reason for variance to be evenly distributed.
However if the variance is a measure of high EV vs low EV hands, then it looks suspicious if it definitely favours the low EV side.
I just think it would be reasuring to see it "more or less" evenly distributed.
 
In any case, I found out why I was seeing this skew towards the low EV hands. 
I was assuming that the 169 hands were all equally likely.
I later realized that, of course, they are not.
For instance, AA counts as one of the 169 hands, but in reality there are four different AA hands.
Taking that into account, I ran the spreadseet graphs again and got a much more reasuring picture of the variance.
 
[ATTACH]11623[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]11624[/ATTACH]
 
Before, (with the flawed assumption) it looked like this
[ATTACH]11622[/ATTACH]
Hence the reason for my comments in the previous posts.
 
Since players are playing against each other rather than against the house, this measure of EV does not necessarilly indicate whether the deal is rigged or not. I just thought it was a convenient way to group the hands in order to get a picture that covers dealing of all the hands instead of just AA.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us