|
|
 Originally Posted by EricE
 Originally Posted by Warpe
Variations in table conditions should level out with more hands played.
That’s so not true though.
Imagine a game where everyone who has a set tries to get all his money in every time.
Compare that to a game where only a FH gets felted and sets are bet correspondingly less.
Over a very very large sample size these two games will still look very different in how many times you were destacked and how many times you destacked someone.
Not to get lost in the theoretical ether but, yes, you're right, except these games don't exist apart from one another in the real world over the long term. There will be variations in play as you move stakes/sites etc., no doubt, but essentially we play in a real world situation where conditions vary from table to table and we move between them so, as the sample size increases, they become basically homogeneous statistically.
My main point: We all face the same statistical reality. Over the long haul, we will all get dealt AA the same percentage of the time. Where we will differ drastically is in those things that are under our individual control - our play - and how many of our chips go into the pot and how often. My hypothesis is simply that there is an optimal frequency for us to put them all in against the fixed statistical background.
|