WCOOP Backing offer (flame away)
FellKnight
I am looking for a staking agreement for the WCOOP, Sept 5th-21st.
Staking background: I have been staked in various different events, such
as:
- FTOPS IX Stud, $216, 2nd place/585 for $17,500.
- WCOOP 2006, 5 events, cashed in 3 of 5 events that I was backed in,
including 5th/1200+ in Razz for $13,xxx.
- $2500+100 NLHE in Costa Rica for the WPS, cashed for $21,100 (4th/90).
- Stars $215 Sunday HORSE, 4th/~125 for $1,800.
- WSOP 2005, partial backing (totalling 25%) Cashed only 1/7 events.
- WSOP 2007, $3k for STTs. Lost stake.
- WSOP 2007, $1500 LHE, did not cash.
My stats:
From Full Tilt:
Prizes Profit ROI ABI AFS R/A ITM ITM%
$25,833 $14,828 135% $67 269 5% 30/164 18%
From Pokerstars:
Prizes Profit ROI ABI AFS R/A ITM ITM%
$78,486 $26,983 52% $49 441 19% 182/1044 17%
I am looking for backers for the following events:
Event # 3 - Sept 6, 14:30, $215 LHE
Event # 4 - Sept 6, 16:30, $215 2-7 TD
Event # 8 - Sept 8, 16:30, $320 8 game mixed event
Event #10 - Sept 9, 16:30, $215 Razz
Event #12 - Sept 10, 16:30, $320 Mixed Holdem
Event #14 - Sept 11, 16:30, $320 7 Card Stud
Event #16 - Sept 12, 16:30, $215 PLO + 1 Rebuy + 1 Add-On
Event #18 - Sept 13, 16:30, $215 HORSE
Event #21 - Sept 15, 14:30, $530 Stud 8/b
Event #24 - Sept 16, 16:30, $530 Kansas City Lowball
Event #28 - Sept 18, 16:30, $530 Limit Omaha 8/b
Event #31 - Sept 20, 14:30, $1050 Limit Holdem, 6 max
I would like to discuss deals with potential backers privately, but I am
open to makeup if any backer decides to stake me in multiple events.
Please contact me at fellknight at gmail dot com.
Go ahead, flame away.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
![Mark B [Diputsur]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjW1ukZesLHTvLryryGaLhoUTsW-4I5_N8bKNVoFKGU5T0OxggP6=s40-c)
Mark B [Diputsur]
Who do I make the check out to?
MZB
FYI
When I click on the link (for Stars) ZA Spyblocker prevents it from loading.
Mel
"FellKnight" <jordand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5son5x...@recgroups.com...
FellKnight
> I want $1's worth of each game!
> Who do I make the check out to?
In Canada, we spell it cheque.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Mark B [Diputsur]
> On Aug 18 2008 2:45 PM, Mark B [Diputsur] wrote:
>
>> I want $1's worth of each game!
>> Who do I make the check out to?
>
> In Canada, we spell it cheque.
OK, who do I make the cheque out to? :P
johnnyco...@yahoo.com
> "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
He probably won't answer until you ask him "To whom do I make out the
cheque?"
Ending sentences with prepositions in Canada is a capital crime. (As,
apparently, is helping to pick up a strip club bar tab that would
equal the GDP of sub-Saharan Africa, but that's a whole 'other story.)
.
Mark B [Diputsur]
<johnnyco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ac81e0f8-8cf9-4eee...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> He probably won't answer until you ask him "To whom do I make
> out the cheque?"
>
> Ending sentences with prepositions in Canada is a capital crime. (As,
> apparently, is helping to pick up a strip club bar tab that would
> equal the GDP of sub-Saharan Africa, but that's a whole 'other story.)
OMFG!
Hey DonkeyKnight:
Patty
> > OK, who do I make the cheque out to? :P
>
> He probably won't answer until you ask him "To whom do I make out the
> cheque?"
>
> Ending sentences with prepositions in Canada is a capital crime.
It is much easier to get rid of the sentence-ending preposition as
follows:
"OK, who do I make the cheque out to, asshole?"
Patty
James L. Hankins
"Patty" <Suite...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2dfe98b8-5bb6-4c31...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Patty
________________
Heh...dat der's funny.
FellKnight
> Fell:
>
> FYI
>
> When I click on the link (for Stars) ZA Spyblocker prevents it from loading.
>
> Mel
Bizarre. Works fine for me. Here is the full link.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
FellKnight
First name Fell Last name Knight.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
MZB
Oh, I can override ZA if I choose to, but it is identifying the site as one
with spyware.
Mel
"FellKnight" <jordand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dqapn5x...@recgroups.com...
K9way
OK , Well ,first of all , how can a guy that shows 50,000 plus in profits
need or want any backing .
I know some of the best "stake" players in the world . They all have
horrible "issues" which demand their getting staked.
These issues invariably create problems , once in a stake deal.
Plus , if you are going to do it , you should have some credibility equity.
if I were going to claim 50-60k in winnings , I damn sure wouldnt be
begging for backing for 5k in tournies .
"Hi, I win almost every time I play so , please send me some money to play
on , as I dont have any of my own "
Only one to get away with this is Tom McEvoy and An Tran, and you sir ..
are no An Tran!!
LOL.. My guess is .. someone will fall for it !!
> --
> Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
> alcohol in your bloodstream
>
> ppdls, 08/08/08
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
---
GrouchySmurf1002
> OK , Well ,first of all , how can a guy that shows 50,000 plus in profits
> need or want any backing .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/2326a88b5be3e3d2/073785858885c78b?lnk=st&q=#073785858885c78b
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/3373f028cfe9fa9e/8069452d5bca1502?lnk=st&q=#8069452d5bca1502
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/7223b8ba4feb0b7/8daf7d57180181a0?lnk=st&q=ragz+group%3Arec.gambling.poker#8daf7d57180181a0
FellKnight
> Fell:
>
> Oh, I can override ZA if I choose to, but it is identifying the site as one
> with spyware.
>
> Mel
Not much I can do about that, then, lol. OPR is a very well known site
among poker players.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
----
FellKnight
> OK , Well ,first of all , how can a guy that shows 50,000 plus in profits
> need or want any backing .
For one thing, over 20k of those profits have been while backed, so it is
hardly my money. For the rest, I think my story is well enough known not
to need to rehash it again. I am rebuilding my roll on my own, and expect
that next year I will be playing these events on my own dime, but this
year, a $5000 roll is not enough to play these events.
> I know some of the best "stake" players in the world . They all have
> horrible "issues" which demand their getting staked.
>
> These issues invariably create problems , once in a stake deal.
>
> Plus , if you are going to do it , you should have some credibility equity.
I do have credibility equity. I could get any of those who have staked me
in the past to state that I acted honorably, am trustworthy with the
money, and have paid any profits promptly (including the two 5 figure
wins, both of which were sent the very night of the win).
> if I were going to claim 50-60k in winnings , I damn sure wouldnt be
> begging for backing for 5k in tournies .
I'm not "claiming" anything, simply showing my stats for all to see. At
least I beat the games ;)
> "Hi, I win almost every time I play so , please send me some money to play
> on , as I dont have any of my own "
>
> Only one to get away with this is Tom McEvoy and An Tran, and you sir ..
> are no An Tran!!
I never claimed to be An Tran. If I was, I would ask for a better deal
for myself.
> LOL.. My guess is .. someone will fall for it !!
Yup, just like in '06, when a lurker who "fell" for it turned $215 into
$10+k.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
_______________________________________________________________________
XaQ Morphy
> Still doesnt address or answer the question.
>
> People that need to be staked have fundamental flaws that make staking
> them a bad deal !!
Wrong. There are so many things wrong with this statement I can't even
find a place to start.
> And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker than
> you have playing
Which is exactly relevant to this discussion how?
---
Morphy
xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
--------
K9way
Still doesnt address or answer the question.
People that need to be staked have fundamental flaws that make staking
them a bad deal !!
And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker than
you have playing
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
____________________________________________________________________
FellKnight
> Still doesnt address or answer the question.
>
> People that need to be staked have fundamental flaws that make staking
> them a bad deal !!
Unless they are TJ or An Tran? Like I said, my story is well known, my
money did not get lost at the tables. If you think it's a bad deal, then
you are free to either reject it or counter.
> And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker than
> you have playing
Considering that I have been playing for 4 years, and you have been
playing for what, 30?
I would sure fucking hope so!
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
_______________________________________________________________________
RazzO
On Aug 19 2008 12:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:
> > And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker than
> > you have playing
>
> Considering that I have been playing for 4 years, and you have been
> playing for what, 30?
>
> I would sure fucking hope so!
>
> Fell
RazzO
"Your all is idiots!" - Mike Matusow
Travel
Where are the loss stats?
Weren't you caught faking something or other for the purpose of
self-aggrandizement in the past?
If NL tournaments are a crap shoot, why would your cashing here and
there be a particularly compelling reason for someone to cough-up money
to stake you in another crapshoot?
Buying 5k in lottery scratch tickets would be a whole lot easier and a
better chance on return.
Ummm, no, I'll pass.
And I still need a blowjob from Christy Turlington.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com
Mark B [Diputsur]
"Travel" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12191755...@pokermagazine.com...
> Weren't you caught faking something or other for the purpose of
> self-aggrandizement in the past?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/browse_thread/thread/f9a3d1d348d03b00
garycarson
> On Aug 19 2008 1:30 AM, MZB wrote:
>
> > Fell:
> >
> > Oh, I can override ZA if I choose to, but it is identifying the site as
one
> > with spyware.
> >
> > Mel
>
> Not much I can do about that, then, lol. OPR is a very well known site
> among poker players.
>
Really?
I've never heard of it.
The three or four competitors of that site that I've looked at seem to all
cherry pick the stats. So i pretty much don't pay any attention to them.
For example, Sharkscope shows a significantly different history for
fellknight than the one you gave.
------
XaQ Morphy
> Really?
>
> I've never heard of it.
OPR is as well known as thepokerdb. Sorry you haven't heard of it, but
then again I wasn't aware you were the expert in these things.
> The three or four competitors of that site that I've looked at seem to all
> cherry pick the stats. So i pretty much don't pay any attention to them.
>
> For example, Sharkscope shows a significantly different history for
> fellknight than the one you gave.
Well that's certainly odd. You don't think it has to do with the fact
that Sharkscope is just SNGs and OPR is MTTs, do you?
_______________________________________________________________________
FellKnight
> On Aug 19 2008 11:04 AM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19 2008 1:30 AM, MZB wrote:
> >
> > > Fell:
> > >
> > > Oh, I can override ZA if I choose to, but it is identifying the site as
> one
> > > with spyware.
> > >
> > > Mel
> >
> > Not much I can do about that, then, lol. OPR is a very well known site
> > among poker players.
> >
>
> Really?
>
> I've never heard of it.
>
> The three or four competitors of that site that I've looked at seem to all
> cherry pick the stats. So i pretty much don't pay any attention to them.
>
> For example, Sharkscope shows a significantly different history for
> fellknight than the one you gave.
"SharkScope is the most complete database of online poker sit n' go
tournament results available for the PokerStars, FullTilt, CryptoLogic,
Ongame, Pacific, Party Poker, iPoker, IPN, Sky Poker, Everest, Merge and
PKR networks. Support for Svenska Spel, Betfair, B2B and Cake is now in
Beta test."
Sharkscope is for SNGs, which I have never claimed to win at. But I am
fine with posting my stats for them anyway, just as I posted in my OP the
stakes where I lost.
FellKnight 117 $2 $24 -1% $253 - FullTilt
FellKnight 407 $0 $18 8% -$151 - PokerStars
What do you know, I am still a winner in SNGs. Surprises even me to be
honest.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
--------
garycarson
> On Aug 19 2008 4:12 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > Really?
> >
> > I've never heard of it.
>
> OPR is as well known as thepokerdb. Sorry you haven't heard of it, but
> then again I wasn't aware you were the expert in these things.
Well, I am an expert in data analysis.
The data he gives us shows a win average of $28 per tournament -- which is
pretty good since most are low buying events.
But the distribution of wins is a little iffy. One win is over 7 standard
errors above the mean. That's fairly huge. A clear outlier. Omitting
that outlier gives a mean win of about $2 per event, a pretty big
difference.
Another slight outlier is almost 4 standard errors above the mean. I
don't think that's enough of an outlier to call for exclusion (I think 7
standard errors is) but omitting it gives us an average loss of over $12
per event.
All any of this really tells me is that the statistical model that the
stats published by that website is pretty much bullshit and and you can't
really draw any conclusions from those numbers as presented.
Give me until about 8:30 this evening (Central Time) and I'll have
something posted at
http://www.mathandpoker.com/index.php/?p=376
about this.
>
> > The three or four competitors of that site that I've looked at seem to all
> > cherry pick the stats. So i pretty much don't pay any attention to them.
> >
> > For example, Sharkscope shows a significantly different history for
> > fellknight than the one you gave.
>
> Well that's certainly odd. You don't think it has to do with the fact
> that Sharkscope is just SNGs and OPR is MTTs, do you?
That's what I said. They cherry pick.
----
Patti Beadles
garycarson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>All any of this really tells me is that the statistical model that the
>stats published by that website is pretty much bullshit and and you can't
>really draw any conclusions from those numbers as presented.
Actually, that's true in almost all situations where one
is discussing multi-table tournaments. Few players have a
sufficiently large sample to derive any sort of statistical
confidence in their capabilities.
This is especially true in the new world order, where a
tournament routinely has several hundred to a few thousand
entries, rather than the old 50-200 that used to be the
norm.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
FellKnight
You are awesome, Carson.
No kidding... my big wins are outliers? Wow. Blew my mind. Here I am
thinking that I should average a final table in every 1000+ entrant event
I play. Thanks for correcting my thinking.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
--------
K9way
> On Aug 19 2008 1:29 PM, K9way wrote:
>
> > Still doesnt address or answer the question.
> >
> > People that need to be staked have fundamental flaws that make staking
> > them a bad deal !!
>
> Unless they are TJ or An Tran?
TJ has blown every penny he ever made at the dice table. An Tran is in
fact an anomoly , in that he refuses to put his own money up , and he has
a winning record. I talked to him in Tunica. He sets at a table by the
registration desk , and waits for someone to hand him a buy-in . An tran
hasnt played a penny of his own money in 20 years .
Like I said, my story is well known, my
> money did not get lost at the tables. If you think it's a bad deal, then
> you are free to either reject it or counter.
>
> > And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker than
> > you have playing
>
> Considering that I have been playing for 4 years, and you have been
> playing for what, 30?
>
> I would sure fucking hope so!
>
> Fell
> --
> Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
> alcohol in your bloodstream
>
> ppdls, 08/08/08
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
-------
XaQ Morphy
> All any of this really tells me is that the statistical model that the
> stats published by that website is pretty much bullshit and and you can't
> really draw any conclusions from those numbers as presented.
Here's all potential backers need to know:
1) Fell wins when people back him.
2) Fell is an honest person who is true to his word and won't run off with
any backer's money.
3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that they
are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
Any questions?
____________________________________________________________________
FellKnight
> In article <qu1sn5x...@recgroups.com>,
> garycarson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >All any of this really tells me is that the statistical model that the
> >stats published by that website is pretty much bullshit and and you can't
> >really draw any conclusions from those numbers as presented.
>
> Actually, that's true in almost all situations where one
> is discussing multi-table tournaments. Few players have a
> sufficiently large sample to derive any sort of statistical
> confidence in their capabilities.
>
> This is especially true in the new world order, where a
> tournament routinely has several hundred to a few thousand
> entries, rather than the old 50-200 that used to be the
> norm.
>
> -Patti
> --
> Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
A voice of reason?
I have never denied that MTTs are high variance. The most likely result
from a backing is clearly a loss. Next most likely is a small win. There
is perhaps only a 5% chance of a decent win ($1000 or more), maybe less.
All I am trying to show is that the statisically most likely probability
is that I am in fact a winning player over 4 years of play. Running lucky
over the same 4 years is a possibility too.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
_______________________________________________________________________
garycarson
> In article <qu1sn5x...@recgroups.com>,
> garycarson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >All any of this really tells me is that the statistical model that the
> >stats published by that website is pretty much bullshit and and you can't
> >really draw any conclusions from those numbers as presented.
>
> Actually, that's true in almost all situations where one
> is discussing multi-table tournaments. Few players have a
> sufficiently large sample to derive any sort of statistical
> confidence in their capabilities.
>
It's really not about sample size, Patti.
There's a lot of problems with the statistical model used by those who try
to interpret a mean as meaningful. You can start with a lack of
identically distributed random variables in the sample.
The sample is some kind of mixture. You have to answer Mixture of what?
before you start fixinig on what statistics you should be calculating.
Means are almost certianly the wrong statistic. No matter what the sample
size.
-----
garycarson
One of them is. Over 7 standard errors above the mean is a clear outlier.
I think you don't understand what outlier means. It means there is
something wrong. Sometimes it's a data clollection error, in this case
it's a statistical model error.
The error is in assuming that the sampling is done from a common
population. It's likely not the case at all. Some other statistical
model is needed
Wow. Blew my mind. Here I am
> thinking that I should average a final table in every 1000+ entrant event
> I play. Thanks for correcting my thinking.
When you have clear evidence that the data violates assumptions about
independent, identically distributed sampling you need to rething the
meaning of such an average.
>
> Fell
> --
> Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
> alcohol in your bloodstream
>
> ppdls, 08/08/08
--------
garycarson
> On Aug 19 2008 6:35 PM, garycarson wrote:
> > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
> ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that they
> are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
>
I don't give a shit if anybody backs him or not.
The information he gave does not demonstrate what he claims it does.
______________________________________________________________________
FellKnight
> There's a lot of problems with the statistical model used by those who try
> to interpret a mean as meaningful. You can start with a lack of
> identically distributed random variables in the sample.
Identically distributed random variables would pretty much be the opposite
of random, no?
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
----
garycarson
> On Aug 19 2008 8:21 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > There's a lot of problems with the statistical model used by those who try
> > to interpret a mean as meaningful. You can start with a lack of
> > identically distributed random variables in the sample.
>
> Identically distributed random variables would pretty much be the opposite
> of random, no?
>
No.
I'm sorry. I thought I was talking to somebody who actually had a small
clue.
Never mind.
-----
FellKnight
I understand fully what an outlier is. What I know is that you can't pick
one specific event and call it an outlier. The very definition of poker
tournaments is that big wins will be outliers.
> It means there is something wrong.
No it doesn't.
> Sometimes it's a data collection error, in this case
> it's a statistical model error.
>
> The error is in assuming that the sampling is done from a common
> population. It's likely not the case at all. Some other statistical
> model is needed
By all means, enlighten us.
> Wow. Blew my mind. Here I am
> > thinking that I should average a final table in every 1000+ entrant event
> > I play. Thanks for correcting my thinking.
>
> When you have clear evidence that the data violates assumptions about
> independent, identically distributed sampling you need to rething the
> meaning of such an average.
You have no clear evidence of anything. If you want to be like the
olympics, and discrad the uppermost AND bottommost results, then do so.
My results based on other stats, such as average finish, still show that I
am well above average.
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
------
XaQ Morphy
> I don't give a shit if anybody backs him or not.
>
> The information he gave does not demonstrate what he claims it does.
Sure it does. He gave information showing he was a winning player. The
information shows that he's a winning player. Do you need someone to
explain what all the numbers mean to you?
----
FellKnight
> On Aug 19 2008 7:59 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19 2008 6:35 PM, garycarson wrote:
> > > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
> > ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> > generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> > people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that they
> > are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
> >
>
> I don't give a shit if anybody backs him or not.
>
> The information he gave does not demonstrate what he claims it does.
Directly quoted from my OP:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello All,
I am looking for a staking agreement for the WCOOP, Sept 5th-21st.
Staking background: I have been staked in various different events, such
as:
- FTOPS IX Stud, $216, 2nd place/585 for $17,500.
- WCOOP 2006, 5 events, cashed in 3 of 5 events that I was backed in,
including 5th/1200+ in Razz for $13,xxx.
- $2500+100 NLHE in Costa Rica for the WPS, cashed for $21,100 (4th/90).
- Stars $215 Sunday HORSE, 4th/~125 for $1,800.
- WSOP 2005, partial backing (totalling 25%) Cashed only 1/7 events.
- WSOP 2007, $3k for STTs. Lost stake.
- WSOP 2007, $1500 LHE, did not cash.
My stats:
From Full Tilt:
Prizes Profit ROI ABI AFS R/A ITM ITM%
$25,833 $14,828 135% $67 269 5% 30/164 18%
From Pokerstars:
Prizes Profit ROI ABI AFS R/A ITM ITM%
$78,486 $26,983 52% $49 441 19% 182/1044 17%
I am looking for backers for the following events:
Event # 3 - Sept 6, 14:30, $215 LHE
Event # 4 - Sept 6, 16:30, $215 2-7 TD
Event # 8 - Sept 8, 16:30, $320 8 game mixed event
Event #10 - Sept 9, 16:30, $215 Razz
Event #12 - Sept 10, 16:30, $320 Mixed Holdem
Event #14 - Sept 11, 16:30, $320 7 Card Stud
Event #16 - Sept 12, 16:30, $215 PLO + 1 Rebuy + 1 Add-On
Event #18 - Sept 13, 16:30, $215 HORSE
Event #21 - Sept 15, 14:30, $530 Stud 8/b
Event #24 - Sept 16, 16:30, $530 Kansas City Lowball
Event #28 - Sept 18, 16:30, $530 Limit Omaha 8/b
Event #31 - Sept 20, 14:30, $1050 Limit Holdem, 6 max
I would like to discuss deals with potential backers privately, but I am
open to makeup if any backer decides to stake me in multiple events.
Please contact me at fellknight at gmail dot com.
Go ahead, flame away.
Fell
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where exactly did I claim what my stats show?
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
------
mo_charles
> ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that they
> are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
>
> Any questions?
then it's your contention that only folks who wish to back the beggar
should respond in the thread?
mo_charles
-----
FellKnight
> > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
> > ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> > generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> > people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that they
> > are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
> >
> > Any questions?
>
> then it's your contention that only folks who wish to back the beggar
> should respond in the thread?
>
> mo_charles
beggar? How's that? For such a capitalist such as you, I'd expect that
you would consider IPOs begging too?
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
-----
garycarson
> On Aug 19 2008 9:41 PM, mo_charles wrote:
>
> > > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
> > > ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> > > generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> > > people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that
they
> > > are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
> > >
> > > Any questions?
> >
> > then it's your contention that only folks who wish to back the beggar
> > should respond in the thread?
> >
> > mo_charles
>
> beggar? How's that? For such a capitalist such as you, I'd expect that
> you would consider IPOs begging too?
>
Wow.
Earlier you claimed you never intended to imply that the stats you
included had any meaning, that you'd just included them as a hand waving
exercise.
Now you're claiming that you're selling unregistered investment paper in
violation of SEC rules. I'm pretty sure that also violates just tons of
Canadian laws.
No wonder whats her name found it so easy to get you to invest in her used
clothing fiasco. You're just an idiot.
____________________________________________________________________
mo_charles
> >
> > then it's your contention that only folks who wish to back the beggar
> > should respond in the thread?
>
> you would consider IPOs begging too?
i don't give a shit what people put their money into; i don't want
objecting opinions banished from the conversation.
mo_charles
------
FellKnight
> On Aug 19 2008 9:55 PM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19 2008 9:41 PM, mo_charles wrote:
> >
> > > > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
> > > > ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> > > > generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> > > > people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that
> they
> > > > are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
> > > >
> > > > Any questions?
> > >
> > > then it's your contention that only folks who wish to back the beggar
> > > should respond in the thread?
> > >
> > > mo_charles
> >
> > beggar? How's that? For such a capitalist such as you, I'd expect that
> > you would consider IPOs begging too?
> >
>
> Wow.
>
> Earlier you claimed you never intended to imply that the stats you
> included had any meaning, that you'd just included them as a hand waving
> exercise.
>
> Now you're claiming that you're selling unregistered investment paper in
> violation of SEC rules. I'm pretty sure that also violates just tons of
> Canadian laws.
>
> No wonder whats her name found it so easy to get you to invest in her used
> clothing fiasco. You're just an idiot.
And just when you thought he couldn't get any dumber...
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
-----
Beldin the Sorcerer
"FellKnight" <jordand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eu2sn5x...@recgroups.com...
>> >
>> > Well that's certainly odd. You don't think it has to do with the fact
>> > that Sharkscope is just SNGs and OPR is MTTs, do you?
>>
>> That's what I said. They cherry pick.
>
> You are awesome, Carson.
>
> No kidding... my big wins are outliers? Wow. Blew my mind. Here I am
> thinking that I should average a final table in every 1000+ entrant event
> I play. Thanks for correcting my thinking.
Carson is being an ass again.
However, his point seems to be something like this :
Based on the data available, Most of it sugests a win rate of X
There is one data point that seems off, and changes that data point to X+A
Which number is more meaningful is debateable.
Let's put this in different terms. Say Jonny Dipshit plays 20,000
tournaments, and they're all buy ins of $1-$5, and his performance is fairly
consistent and he shows an average loss of 50 cents a tourney across the
whole range.(-$10,000)
He then miracles a $3 sat into a big tourney and cashed for $25,000, sucking
out three times all in as a huge dog in the process.
Do you now conclude he's a winner long term, or that he got lucky once?
Your sample isn't that skewed. Some people may conclude that it's all fairly
representative. Gary is positing that it isn't.
He's doing it like an asshole, and his interpretation may be inaccurate, but
that's the basis of his claim.
I haven't even looked at your data set, and I'm inclined to look at ROI in
general, but if there's a couple of atypical wins mixed in, I tend to
question them. I also look at the differences in field depth. The guy with
lots of wins at 45 people sng's and no deep field finals is different from
the guy with a 25% roi consistent across field sizes.
Gary is not fond of saying things in plain English. What he seems to be
saying is that there's a couple of large payouts that are very inconsistent
with the rest of the data.
Whether that's really true is a subject for debate, of course.
gtech1
he's won money. Are you disputing this? Do you think the stats are fake?
Also, as for "outliers," I'll guess without looking that if you look at
even the highest ranked players on OPR, and take out their biggest
tournament win, most of them will be marginally winning, or even losing
players.
On Aug 19 2008 8:29 PM, garycarson wrote:
> On Aug 19 2008 7:59 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19 2008 6:35 PM, garycarson wrote:
> > > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
> > ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> > generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> > people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that they
> > are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
> >
>
> I don't give a shit if anybody backs him or not.
>
> The information he gave does not demonstrate what he claims it does.
------
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Aug 19 2008 1:29 PM, K9way wrote:
>
>> Still doesnt address or answer the question.
>>
>> People that need to be staked have fundamental flaws that make staking
>> them a bad deal !!
>
> money did not get lost at the tables. If you think it's a bad deal, then
> you are free to either reject it or counter.
>
>> And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker
>> than
>> you have playing
>
> Considering that I have been playing for 4 years, and you have been
> playing for what, 30?
>
> I would sure fucking hope so!
>
garycarson
> What do you think the information he gave DOES demonstrate? It shows that
> he's won money. Are you disputing this? Do you think the stats are fake?
>
>
> Also, as for "outliers," I'll guess without looking that if you look at
> even the highest ranked players on OPR, and take out their biggest
> tournament win, most of them will be marginally winning, or even losing
> players.
Nobody suggested censoring the maximum value.
Seven std. dev. is huge, though. And if you look at the distribution it's
pretty clearly
Here's the z scores for the last 120 days.
7.50
-0.28
-0.26
-0.24
-0.19
-0.22
-0.15
-0.15
-0.19
-0.13
-0.19
-0.24
-0.14
-0.15
-0.04
-0.24
-0.24
-0.13
-0.12
-0.22
0.10
-0.19
-0.16
-0.24
-0.07
-0.12
3.92
-0.14
-0.13
-0.12
-0.12
-0.13
-0.22
-0.15
-0.24
-0.13
-0.15
-0.32
0.20
-0.32
0.08
-0.19
-0.18
-0.15
-0.15
-0.13
-0.24
-0.13
-0.26
-0.26
-0.18
-0.12
-0.12
-0.16
-0.12
-0.02
-0.19
-0.13
-0.14
-0.24
-0.15
-0.24
-0.14
-0.16
-0.13
0.18
-0.13
-0.18
-0.15
-0.16
-0.24
-0.15
-0.15
-0.24
-0.15
That's not exactly a well behaied distribution.
It has nothing to do with sample size or large variance in tournaments.
It's just out of whack.
I havn't finished the mathandpoker.com post yet, I'm going to include some
median/mean absolute deviation analysis of outliers in that post. I
probably won't get around to it until tomorrow.
I'll also include a look at a log-normal version.
I don't give a shit about fellknight and his need for money. I just
think analysis of poker results presents an interesting statistical
problem that almost everybody gets wrong.
>
> > On Aug 19 2008 7:59 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 19 2008 6:35 PM, garycarson wrote:
> > > > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks
never
> > > ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> > > generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> > > people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that
they
> > > are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
> > >
> >
> > I don't give a shit if anybody backs him or not.
> >
> > The information he gave does not demonstrate what he claims it does.
______________________________________________________________________
Beldin the Sorcerer
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:2chsn5x...@recgroups.com...
> On Aug 19 2008 10:58 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>
>> What do you think the information he gave DOES demonstrate? It shows
>> that
>> he's won money. Are you disputing this? Do you think the stats are
>> fake?
>>
>>
>> Also, as for "outliers," I'll guess without looking that if you look at
>> even the highest ranked players on OPR, and take out their biggest
>> tournament win, most of them will be marginally winning, or even losing
>> players.
>
> Nobody suggested censoring the maximum value.
>
I looked at his FT distro, and the sample seems less than useful to me, too.
His stars sample is more conforming, although it shows a lot of SuperSat
'wins' that may distort some things.
K9way
> On Aug 19 2008 7:49 PM, Patti Beadles wrote:
>
> > In article <qu1sn5x...@recgroups.com>,
> > garycarson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >All any of this really tells me is that the statistical model that the
> > >stats published by that website is pretty much bullshit and and you can't
> > >really draw any conclusions from those numbers as presented.
> >
> > Actually, that's true in almost all situations where one
> > is discussing multi-table tournaments. Few players have a
> > sufficiently large sample to derive any sort of statistical
> > confidence in their capabilities.
> >
> > This is especially true in the new world order, where a
> > tournament routinely has several hundred to a few thousand
> > entries, rather than the old 50-200 that used to be the
> > norm.
> >
> > -Patti
> > --
> > Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
>
> A voice of reason?
>
> I have never denied that MTTs are high variance. The most likely result
> from a backing is clearly a loss. Next most likely is a small win. There
> is perhaps only a 5% chance of a decent win ($1000 or more),
One in 20 that you are going to win big ?? I dont think that statement is
going to help your cause any!!
maybe less.
> All I am trying to show is that the statisically most likely probability
> is that I am in fact a winning player over 4 years of play. Running lucky
> over the same 4 years is a possibility too.
>
> Fell
> --
> Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
> alcohol in your bloodstream
>
> ppdls, 08/08/08
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
________________________________________________________________________
K9way
> On Aug 19 2008 12:29 PM, K9way wrote:
>
> > Still doesnt address or answer the question.
> >
> > People that need to be staked have fundamental flaws that make staking
> > them a bad deal !!
>
> Wrong. There are so many things wrong with this statement I can't even
> find a place to start.
Actually , I think you will find that , this statement might be the most
correct thing I ever wrote.
>
> > And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker than
> > you have playing
>
> Which is exactly relevant to this discussion how?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
_____________________________________________________________________
K9way
You barf up more pedantic bullshit than Will in New Haven . You are that
good with words , and you still have to plageurize another for your only
book ?
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
--------
K9way
EXCEPT YOU OF COURSE
Listen , just plageurize some mathematicians work like you did for the
shit your lame ass book !!
>
> >
> > > On Aug 19 2008 7:59 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Aug 19 2008 6:35 PM, garycarson wrote:
> > > > > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks
> never
> > > > ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> > > > generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> > > > people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that
> they
> > > > are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't give a shit if anybody backs him or not.
> > >
> > > The information he gave does not demonstrate what he claims it does.
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
-----
K9way
> "FellKnight" <jordand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eu2sn5x...@recgroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Well that's certainly odd. You don't think it has to do with the fact
> >> > that Sharkscope is just SNGs and OPR is MTTs, do you?
> >>
> >> That's what I said. They cherry pick.
> >
> > You are awesome, Carson.
> >
> > No kidding... my big wins are outliers? Wow. Blew my mind. Here I am
> > thinking that I should average a final table in every 1000+ entrant event
> > I play. Thanks for correcting my thinking.
>
> Carson is being an ass again.
STILL!!
> However, his point seems to be something like this :
> Based on the data available, Most of it sugests a win rate of X
> There is one data point that seems off, and changes that data point to X+A
> Which number is more meaningful is debateable.
>
> Let's put this in different terms. Say Jonny Dipshit
or jonny carson
plays 20,000
> tournaments, and they're all buy ins of $1-$5, and his performance is fairly
> consistent and he shows an average loss of 50 cents a tourney across the
> whole range.(-$10,000)
> He then miracles a $3 sat into a big tourney and cashed for $25,000, sucking
> out three times all in as a huge dog in the process.
>
> Do you now conclude he's a winner long term, or that he got lucky once?
>
> Your sample isn't that skewed. Some people may conclude that it's all fairly
> representative. Gary is positing that it isn't.
> He's doing it like an asshole,
Not true , he isnt doing it "LIKE" an asshole HE IS AN ASSHOLE !!
and his interpretation may be inaccurate, but
> that's the basis of his claim.
>
> I haven't even looked at your data set, and I'm inclined to look at ROI in
> general, but if there's a couple of atypical wins mixed in, I tend to
> question them. I also look at the differences in field depth. The guy with
> lots of wins at 45 people sng's and no deep field finals is different from
> the guy with a 25% roi consistent across field sizes.
>
>
> Gary is not fond of saying things in plain English. What he seems to be
> saying is that there's a couple of large payouts that are very inconsistent
> with the rest of the data.
>
> Whether that's really true is a subject for debate, of course.
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
---
K9way
> On Aug 19 2008 6:35 PM, garycarson wrote:
>
> > All any of this really tells me is that the statistical model that the
> > stats published by that website is pretty much bullshit and and you can't
> > really draw any conclusions from those numbers as presented.
>
> Here's all potential backers need to know:
>
> 1) Fell wins when people back him.
>
> 2) Fell is an honest person who is true to his word and won't run off with
> any backer's money.
>
> 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
> ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that they
> are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
>
> Any questions?
iN OTHER WORDS .. DONT QUEER ANOTHER MANS HUSTLE !!
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqm...@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
________________________________________________________________________
K9way
> On Aug 19 2008 9:55 PM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19 2008 9:41 PM, mo_charles wrote:
> >
> > > > 3) Those who reply to threads about backers with negative remarks never
> > > > ever had any intention of backing them in the first place, and should
> > > > generally just stay out of it. The information is out there for those
> > > > people interested in backing, and the excuse from most naysayers that
> they
> > > > are trying to protect someone from giving money away is weak at best.
> > > >
> > > > Any questions?
> > >
> > > then it's your contention that only folks who wish to back the beggar
> > > should respond in the thread?
> > >
> > > mo_charles
> >
> > beggar? How's that? For such a capitalist such as you, I'd expect that
> > you would consider IPOs begging too?
> >
>
> Wow.
>
> Earlier you claimed you never intended to imply that the stats you
> included had any meaning, that you'd just included them as a hand waving
> exercise.
>
> Now you're claiming that you're selling unregistered investment paper in
> violation of SEC rules. I'm pretty sure that also violates just tons of
> Canadian laws.
>
> No wonder whats her name found it so easy to get you to invest in her used
> clothing fiasco. You're just an idiot.
Carson knows the guy is an idiot .. he has seen him at the meetings!!
Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
------
FellKnight
> On Aug 19 2008 10:58 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>
> > What do you think the information he gave DOES demonstrate? It shows that
> > he's won money. Are you disputing this? Do you think the stats are fake?
> >
> >
> > Also, as for "outliers," I'll guess without looking that if you look at
> > even the highest ranked players on OPR, and take out their biggest
> > tournament win, most of them will be marginally winning, or even losing
> > players.
>
> Nobody suggested censoring the maximum value.
>
>
>
> Seven std. dev. is huge, though. And if you look at the distribution it's
> pretty clearly
>
> Here's the z scores for the last 120 days.
<snip>
> I don't give a shit about fellknight and his need for money. I just
> think analysis of poker results presents an interesting statistical
> problem that almost everybody gets wrong.
Are you seriously suggesting that your analysis of my MTT (already high
variance) results over the past 120 days is more representative of my
results over 4 years? Seriously?
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
______________________________________________________________________
FellKnight
Would you prefer that I lie?
Anyone who knows the first thing about MTTs knows that it is a high risk
proposition.
I am not sure how OPR calculates it, but these are their states for me:
MTT Avg. Finish%
Early 10%
EM 20%
Mid. 40%
ML 20%
Late 10%
Thus, I am only about 1 in 10 go deep (I assume defined as reasonably past
the bubble).
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
johnnyco...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> I don't give a shit about fellknight and his need for money. I just
> think analysis of poker results presents an interesting statistical
> problem that almost everybody gets wrong.
>
I am not being a smartass here, but isn't analysis of poker results
just "Do you win or lose?" There is nothing statistical (or, frankly,
interesting) about it.
A lot of people seem to spend so much time and effort on ROI or EV or
WTF or whatever, and they're just trying to make it much more
complicated than it is. If you buy into a $10,000 tournament and you
win $10,100, your're a winning player. Whether the return is good
enough for the investment and the time spent is a matter of argument
and a matter of degree (hell, if that $10,000 had sat in the bank for
2 days and earned $50 interest, then this was a better use of the
money).
But if someone spends X on poker and comes out the other end with X +
anything, they're a winning player for that time period (understanding
the inherent problem in defining the "period"). If not, they're a
losing player. Anything else is smoke, mirrors and irrelevant math,
leading to irrelevant arguments as to whether that is "good enough".
.
FellKnight
Update:
Several events have been booked. The remaining events are left:
> Event # 3 - Sept 6, 14:30, $215 LHE (tentatively booked)
> Event # 4 - Sept 6, 16:30, $215 2-7 TD
> Event #12 - Sept 10, 16:30, $320 Mixed Holdem
> Event #16 - Sept 12, 16:30, $215 PLO + 1 Rebuy + 1 Add-On
> Event #21 - Sept 15, 14:30, $530 Stud 8/b
> Event #24 - Sept 16, 16:30, $530 Kansas City Lowball
> Event #28 - Sept 18, 16:30, $530 Limit Omaha 8/b
> Event #31 - Sept 20, 14:30, $1050 Limit Holdem, 6 max
Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream
ppdls, 08/08/08
________________________________________________________________________
garycarson
> On Aug 19, 11:58 pm, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't give a shit about fellknight and his need for money. I just
> > think analysis of poker results presents an interesting statistical
> > problem that almost everybody gets wrong.
> >
>
>
> I am not being a smartass here, but isn't analysis of poker results
> just "Do you win or lose?" There is nothing statistical (or, frankly,
> interesting) about it.
Having won in the past does not always imply that you have a positive
expected value.
We use history to estimate the future and sometimes historical means
aren't representative of rational expectations.
I think statistical poker result histories are one of those situations.
I only did a quick-and-dirty analysis of the last 120 days because that's
what was on the webpage but based on that the mean result was $28 per
event, the median result was -$11 (a loss) and the censored mean (omitting
everything over 7 std dev from the mean) was $2.
Any of those might be a valid estimate of the future results (depending on
unknown properties of the distribution). So does the most recent 120 days
say he's a player with a winning expectation. It says he has won, but not
that he has a winning expectation.
It's that distinction that I find interesting. Most people probably
don't.
This data suggests it's not about big variance. I used the data to
estimate a variance (a std dev of about $250). If the data was unreliable
because of a big variance then when we calculated z-scores we'd find the
extreme points more like 2 or 3 standard deviations above the mean, not
7.5 The probability of finding one item in a sample of about 70 that's
7.5 standard deviations from the mean is pretty much zero.
So there's something wrong with a staistical model that is based on mjean
and standard deviation.
>
> A lot of people seem to spend so much time and effort on ROI or EV or
> WTF or whatever, and they're just trying to make it much more
> complicated than it is. If you buy into a $10,000 tournament and you
> win $10,100, your're a winning player.
No. You were a winning player. That's not the same as you are a winning
player and not the same as you will be a winning player.
Whether the return is good
> enough for the investment and the time spent is a matter of argument
> and a matter of degree (hell, if that $10,000 had sat in the bank for
> 2 days and earned $50 interest, then this was a better use of the
> money).
>
> But if someone spends X on poker and comes out the other end with X +
> anything, they're a winning player for that time period (understanding
> the inherent problem in defining the "period").
Yes. But what does that tell you about expectations for the future?
Fellknight is not a winning player in the sense of having money in his
pocket because he's begging for a buyin. He has won in the past but the
money is not in his pocket.
He's presented a playing history as evidence that he has a winning
expectation for the future. I'm saying that the data doesn't really
support that conclusion after close examination. That doesn't mean he
doesn't have a winning expectation, just that the data doesn't really tell
us anything.
-------
johnnyco...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Aug 20 2008 11:30 AM, johnnycoconutsftp wrote:
> > But if someone spends X on poker and comes out the other end with X +
> > anything, they're a winning player for that time period (understanding
> > the inherent problem in defining the "period").
>
> Yes. But what does that tell you about expectations for the future?
>
Precisely nothing. Which means you made my point for me.
If you concede that winning a little in the past does not portend
greatness for the future, then don't you have to logicaly agree that
winning more in the past does nothing materially more? (Particularly
since you would argue that a large win is an anomoly and shouldn't be
counted?) My point is that people simply "are" or "are not" winning
players - it's an empirical fact. What you're trying to do is deduce
that fact through the use of past results. THAT is not math - it's
your gut telling you something. My point is just not to couch it in
statistics.
> Fellknight is not a winning player in the sense of having money in his
> pocket because he's begging for a buyin. He has won in the past but the
> money is not in his pocket.
>
Ah, now you're tying two things together than may have nothing to do
with each other. Maybe he won but blew it all on hockey jerseys,
LaBatts, or learning how to plan God Save the Queen on a sousaphone.
Who knows, but being a winning player does not mean you will have
money in your pocket, nor does the lack of pocket money mean the
opposite.
> He's presented a playing history as evidence that he has a winning
> expectation for the future. I'm saying that the data doesn't really
> support that conclusion after close examination. That doesn't mean he
> doesn't have a winning expectation, just that the data doesn't really tell
> us anything.
So what you're really trying to get at NOW is that there is not ENOUGH
data for you to make a decision. While I would say that such a point
is moot (since I think that you can parse any period of results into
anything you want and determine a "winning" versus a "losing" player
simply by the way you phrase the question or set the requirements),
that is a very different thing than taking a set of results and saying
that "these don't prove you're a winning player and therefore you're a
losing player".
.
garycarson
much about it. I was trying to explain it to you, but I failed in that
attempt.
So, never mind.
----
johnnyco...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> I'm not trying to discuss it with you because you clearly don't understand
> much about it. I was trying to explain it to you, but I failed in that
> attempt.
>
> So, never mind.
>
Will do.....Over in my corner never-minding.
Wait...what's this over here? Grapes? Cool, I like grapes.
Hmmm.......a bit sour.
.
RussGe...@aol.com
better info. Yes, he's been alive 20 years, but hasn't been playing in
anything like now for about 10 years or so. Prior to this, he was
broke.
On Aug 19, 4:56�pm, "K9way" <ad14...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Aug 19 2008 3:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19 2008 1:29 PM, K9way wrote:
>
> > > Still doesnt address or answer the question.
>
> > > People that need to be staked have fundamental flaws that make staking
> > > them a bad deal !!
>
> > Unless they are TJ or An Tran?
>
> TJ has blown every penny he ever made at the dice table. An Tran is in
> fact an anomoly , in that he refuses to put his own money up , and he has
> a winning record. I talked to him in Tunica. He sets at a table by the
> registration desk , and waits for someone to hand him a buy-in . An tran
> hasnt played a penny of his own money in 20 years .
>
> �Like I said, my story is well known, my
>
>
>
>
>
> > money did not get lost at the tables. �If you think it's a bad deal, then
> > you are free to either reject it or counter.
>
> > > And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker than
> > > you have playing
>
> > Considering that I have been playing for 4 years, and you have been
> > playing for what, 30?
>
> > I would sure fucking hope so!
>
> > Fell
> > --
> > Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
> > alcohol in your bloodstream
>
> > ppdls, 08/08/08
>
> Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
>
> -------�
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Susan
<RussGe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ac473a45-2649-4809...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>An Tran has been around for 20 years? Hey scooter, better get more and
>better info. Yes, he's been alive 20 years, but hasn't been playing in
>anything like now for about 10 years or so. Prior to this, he was
>broke.
He's been playing since the 80's that I know of. He looks much younger than
he is.
On Aug 19, 4:56?pm, "K9way" <ad14...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Aug 19 2008 3:37 PM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Aug 19 2008 1:29 PM, K9way wrote:
>
> > > Still doesnt address or answer the question.
>
> > > People that need to be staked have fundamental flaws that make staking
> > > them a bad deal !!
>
> > Unless they are TJ or An Tran?
>
> TJ has blown every penny he ever made at the dice table. An Tran is in
> fact an anomoly , in that he refuses to put his own money up , and he has
> a winning record. I talked to him in Tunica. He sets at a table by the
> registration desk , and waits for someone to hand him a buy-in . An tran
> hasnt played a penny of his own money in 20 years .
>
> ?Like I said, my story is well known, my
>
>
>
>
>
> > money did not get lost at the tables. ?If you think it's a bad deal,
> > then
> > you are free to either reject it or counter.
>
> > > And I would be willing to bet that I have more winning years in poker
> > > than
> > > you have playing
>
> > Considering that I have been playing for 4 years, and you have been
> > playing for what, 30?
>
> > I would sure fucking hope so!
>
> > Fell
> > --
> > Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
> > alcohol in your bloodstream
>
> > ppdls, 08/08/08
>
> Thank you Lord for the TV Scooter Morons we are about to deceive
>
> -------?
Patti Beadles
garycarson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>It's really not about sample size, Patti.
Well, it is and it isn't. It's partially about sample size.
As you say, it's also about counting apples and oranges,
really bizarre data distributions, and some other things.
If you could get a big enough sample, you could come up with
some sort of mean win/loss measured in buyins per tournament,
though it would probably make sense to cluster those in some
way to make them more similar, e.g. small-field, medium-field,
large-field. To do it well probably requires more data points
than one could get in a lifetime.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
garycarson
> In article <dk4sn5x...@recgroups.com>,
> garycarson <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >It's really not about sample size, Patti.
>
> Well, it is and it isn't. It's partially about sample size.
>
> As you say, it's also about counting apples and oranges,
> really bizarre data distributions, and some other things.
>
> If you could get a big enough sample, you could come up with
> some sort of mean win/loss measured in buyins per tournament,
> though it would probably make sense to cluster those in some
> way to make them more similar, e.g. small-field, medium-field,
> large-field. To do it well probably requires more data points
> than one could get in a lifetime.
>
That's probably true.
I looked at my own pokerstars results for the last 120 days. Unlike
fellknight I didn't have a huge disparity in buyins -- it's pretty much
mostly from $1 to $10. 90 events. Had one result with a z-score of over
5. That's pretty big.
--------