Poker Video: Misc/Other by bellatrix (Micro/Small Stakes)

Time Link to 00:40:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GhbT-zEfc should be clickable...

Here is the HW for this episode, sorry it wasn't up earlier:

http://static.deucescracked.com.s3.amazonaws.com/Math Attacks/homework3.pdf

-Rusty

Time Link to 00:16:21

In the nitty woman example, shouldn't you be multiplying by (9 choose 1) ? The hand she plays can be anyone of the 9 hands.

In the nitty woman example, shouldn't you be multiplying by (9 choose 1) ? The hand she plays can be anyone of the 9 hands.

If you do it like that, then you have to multiply all other factors by 9 too (the ones above, too), because it could be any of the 9 hands, too that she DOESN'T play

By commutative properties of multiplication, they cancel each other out anyway. It actually had to stop for a second and think about your argument, because it is a bit counterintuitive

I have to say that I really enjoy your series so far. You really have that way of making complex math (complex for me, at least) understandable and even fun. Hopefully, with your help, I'll be able to finish this damn book. I really feel your series will help me become a more intelligent poker-player.

Thank you for your great work. I really hope "Math Attacks" will get the love it deserves.

Can't wait for next episode and your next homework assignement.
Who would have thought I'd get so excited about math ? :-)

I am working through these slooooowly. And I am absolutely loving them. Thanks so much for making this series.

I am working through these slooooowly. And I am absolutely loving them. Thanks so much for making this series.

tyvm for the kind words!

I just wonder if I got this correctly so if you can look over this would be great.
So basically if I summarize the statistical theory:

If 'X' is the norm in a given sample group, and I find a person in the sample group to be "Y", it doesn't mean that I can trust this person to not be ''X' directly. However if I find a person in the sample group that is 'X', it becomes significantly less likely this person isn't 'X'.

ty and this is a great series so far, I know most of this stuff from my statistics class but its very well explained.

I just wonder if I got this correctly so if you can look over this would be great.
So basically if I summarize the statistical theory:

If 'X' is the norm in a given sample group, and I find a person in the sample group to be "Y", it doesn't mean that I can trust this person to not be ''X' directly. However if I find a person in the sample group that is 'X', it becomes significantly less likely this person isn't 'X'.

ty and this is a great series so far, I know most of this stuff from my statistics class but its very well explained.

You got it!
That's exactly what I wanted to say when you should act upon low sample reads or assumptions based on good practices.