Quote:
Originally Posted by robwhufc
Thanks for your input Mischman, but the parameters of the pattern i discovered are quite precise.
1) Has to be a H2H game
2) Has to be the first "all-in before the flop" confrontation.
3) The smaller stack has to have the worst of it pre-flop.
Just taking the last 6 which i have got documented evidence for, the odds of the small stack losing all 6 (and this isn't a whiny rant, i've been the small stack on a number of occassions and have come back to win) is over 300/1. If you add in the previous 8, it's over Half a million to one. Doesn't make sense, but that isn't variance. And this is over 3 sites, 9 on pokerstars, 1 on Absolute, and 4 on Full Tilt. And i'm not losing, i'm making over $200 a month playing H2H almost exclusively (due to time restrictions predominately) for a couple of hours a night. |
This is a missapplication of probability.
If you had sat down before any of this and written down those rules and then proceeded to get 14 results in a row then you might have something.
However you have observed something and then built a set of rules to fit your observations.
From the rules I can assume that the short stack has gone in with the best of it and lost and that on subsequent all ins the rules don't hold up.
From your posts you have added these refinements as you've observed them. Originally it was that the short stack always wins when behind.
If I throw 100 coins in the air and then note down the results of each coin, the probability of the exact result is not 1 in 10,000 or whatever it is 1 in 1
because it has already happened. If I call it correctly beforehand then it's something odd.
You may decide to further refine your ruleset based on experience when you discover that it doesn't work if it's the 3rd hand of the game or when the Kd is involved or it's raining. But you are stretching your theory to fit the results it's not scientific method.
Now you have a set of rules, try them out without changing them and see the results.