[Closed] my major leak

Originally posted by TheBrood
I dont understand how its possible that both the players in the graph can have the same winrate after the same amount of hands at the same limit. Logic tells me they should end up at the same exact point in the graph no?

take my Coin Flip anology:

Go flip a coin 100 times, record step by step H or T

repeat.

Compare the 'walk' taken for both and the end result ie. H=T (50H, 50T)
Their routes most likely will be different but end results close and SIMILIAR.

Only....most likely H =/= T

Why? Sample too small.

Originally posted by TheBrood
I dont understand how its possible that both the players in the graph can have the same winrate after the same amount of hands at the same limit. Logic tells me they should end up at the same exact point in the graph no?

I don't get it either ...
One player is playing twice as many tables or what??

Edit: can't be, I am really stupid ♦

Originally posted by shortfuse

Originally posted by TheBrood
I dont understand how its possible that both the players in the graph can have the same winrate after the same amount of hands at the same limit. Logic tells me they should end up at the same exact point in the graph no?

take my Coin Flip anology:

Go flip a coin 100 times, record step by step H or T

repeat.

Compare the 'walk' taken for both and the end result ie. H=T (50H, 50T)
Their routes most likely will be different but end results close and SIMILIAR.

Only....most likely H =/= T

Why? Sample too small.

In the graph posted, they are nowhere near each other, so to me its kinda hard for them to have the same winrate, if they are playing same game, same amount of hands.

Originally posted by TheBrood
In the graph posted, they are nowhere near each other, so to me its kinda hard for them to have the same winrate, if they are playing same game, same amount of hands.

That's because sample is too small.

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS

Originally posted by TheBrood
In the graph posted, they are nowhere near each other, so to me its kinda hard for them to have the same winrate, if they are playing same game, same amount of hands.

That's because sample is too small.

I give up on this thread!

Originally posted by TheBrood

Originally posted by NightFrostaSS

Originally posted by TheBrood
In the graph posted, they are nowhere near each other, so to me its kinda hard for them to have the same winrate, if they are playing same game, same amount of hands.

That's because sample is too small.

I give up on this thread!

I'm assuming he means overall, in reality, he is a 10bb/100 winner, not that over the 100k hands shown in the graph that they are both winning 10bb

Originally posted by Sai7
I'm assuming he means overall, in reality, he is a 10bb/100 winner, not that over the 100k hands shown in the graph that they are both winning 10bb

Exactly!

He used the win rate as the probability factor in determining if a player wins or loses. The win rate here is not the usual measurement where u take the last point in the graph and divide by number of hands.

For example: By his definition, if we make 1 BB bets on coin tosses and 2 players play, they always bet the same, one heads the other tails. Both players should have win rates of 100BB/100. (note: each win nets 2BB, both should win 50/100 times)

W= winning
L= loosing

Player A= WWWLWLWWLLLWLWLLWWWLWLWWWLWWWLLWWLL = 20 - 15 = 5

Player B= WWWLLLWLWLWWLLLLWWLWLWLWLWLWLWWWWWW = 20 -15 = 5

Imagine those sequences are "the long run". They both have same winnings overall.

Now have a look at the samples (same games, same amount of hands).

Player A= LWWWLLWWLL = 5-5 = 0
Player B= WLWLWWWWWW = 8-2 = 6

In a small sample you can't really know which is your winrate.