yes, i must say that this video is giving some light into statistics for someone who dont know statistics
I must recon the helpness of it, and thank the producer for that.
i must also comment that the producer drives some things into extremes, and i dont like that because i believe that i understand statistics alittle more than average people.
why do you need to make all examples for 99.5 confidence ( 3 sd's from the mean) and cannot stop at 2 sd's at least ( 95% ) especially if you are dealing here with poker players who will not care ( be reasonable here) about if they dealing with 99.5% of their total result or only 95% of it?.
Make a parallel between this line and estimating their equity in any hand, do they care if they have equity of 99% or just 90%.
Now, the difference between 3sd and 2 sd is enormous in statistics ( some people will not find one sd being so enormous, but they are not understanding stats as they should if they play poker.
In one example you take 13.8% two times the extremes make it 30% and now, the fact that 13.8+13.8=27.2 doesnt matter anymore 2.8% away from the truth, but you push 3sd instead of 2sd's for 3,5% away from truth. From a statistical point of view you made a great error by adding statistical results of 2 different extreme results of an experiment + and - and turning it into one single explanation of the whole. but that's another story, of a man standing with one man on the burning stove and another man in the ice water and saying on average he is ok.
if you make that for your examples it would be 3.5% less accurate, but you would not scare people so much with the results with 2 sd's.
And i presume your intentions are to give people a real understanding not a scary understanding of variance in poker.
Not to mention the situations where some people would like to see a 68% confidence which is the bulk of their results in time
again, nice series, thak you
My intentions were actually to show the extremes, so that why I decided to go with 99% confidence intervals in general. The idea was to show players who have little background in this information how bad/good things can get because I feel that most player's have an inaccurate assessment of how extreme variance can be. So, for education purposes, I thought it was best to show the extremes so that it would be more dramatic and make the point stick. Extreme examples are easier to conceptualize and remember. Also, most players tend to underestimate variance so to counter that, I wanted to show the extreme variance. As a whole, the community underestimates variance, so I felt it better to show the other side of the coin to mitigate that. In your particular case, this series was slightly missing the target audience since you have a background in this material.
The example you gave of rounding 2*13=26 to 30 is true, but I favored simplicity and rounding in that particular example as to make things a little easier for the listener. Again, this is for educational purposes and was oversimplification/too inaccurate for someone with a background. Maybe that's a little bit too much liberty to take (and I can see that), but I don't think it detracts from my mission; which was to show players the math behind variance, show players how extreme variance can be (as mentioned above, this is why I showed the extremes), and to show players how to deal with variance. As for my examples as a whole, I feel like I hit the point really well. Of course, it's hard to be perfect, so I'm sure there are things I could have done better.
Furthermore, I've shown how the math is done, and provided many examples so if people want to use one of my 99% CI examples and look at a 68% CI example, it's a pretty easy to and/subtract 2SD's from my results. I think I mention in the series "if you don't like my numbers, try it with your own" and that is one of my main goals of the series - to encourage people to these calculations on their own. So, the 68% is easy for anyone to calculate and didn't really work with the theme I was trying to hit, to show the extremes, so I didn't bother with it. I think my examples were mostly fair and pointed. I didn't think it was necessary to do that for each example when I wanted to look more at the extremes that the average poker player (imo) underestimates.