Lies, damn lies, & statistics.

[JK]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

[skolsuper]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

No.

[doubleup]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

No.

They are different numbers - the second is calculated as 5 hours winning £100 and 2 hours winning  £100 ----  (20 + 50)/2 = 35 whereas the first is (100 +100)/7 =28.5

[Deadman]

Have you tried turning it on and off again?

Brilliant.

[skolsuper]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

No.

They are different numbers - the second is calculated as 5 hours winning £100 and 2 hours winning  £100 ----  (20 + 50)/2 = 35 whereas the first is (100 +100)/7 =28.5

Is this a guess or are you actually getting this from the site in question? Because that is no way to calculate anything. Extrapolate: We play 1 ten hour session and break even, and one 10 minute session and win £50. Is our average winrate £150/hr?

[Jon MW]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

No.

They are different numbers - the second is calculated as 5 hours winning £100 and 2 hours winning  £100 ----  (20 + 50)/2 = 35 whereas the first is (100 +100)/7 =28.5

Is this a guess or are you actually getting this from the site in question? Because that is no way to calculate anything. Extrapolate: We play 1 ten hour session and break even, and one 10 minute session and win £50. Is our average winrate £150/hr?

If you won £300 in one session and £0 in another your average win rate could quite correctly be called £150 per session - the title of this thread should give a good indication of the limitations of using statistics.

On a more general level - that's why for all statistics you should be looking at a large enough sample size to make it relevant. In this kind of case it would be more relevant if you the average win rate automatically excluded all sessions less than an hour long (or 2 or 3 ...) but I wouldn't expect any website to bother working out how to exclude outliers like this.

[NEWY]

What is the name of this app please, or if anyone else knows of 1 that just gives 1 figure (preferably 1 that lies and just records my wins)? Ty

[doubleup]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

No.

They are different numbers - the second is calculated as 5 hours winning £100 and 2 hours winning  £100 ----  (20 + 50)/2 = 35 whereas the first is (100 +100)/7 =28.5

Is this a guess or are you actually getting this from the site in question? Because that is no way to calculate anything. Extrapolate: We play 1 ten hour session and break even, and one 10 minute session and win £50. Is our average winrate £150/hr?

from the site

http://www.thehendonmob.com/MyPokerDiary/guide.php?p=8

[skolsuper]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

No.

They are different numbers - the second is calculated as 5 hours winning £100 and 2 hours winning  £100 ----  (20 + 50)/2 = 35 whereas the first is (100 +100)/7 =28.5

Is this a guess or are you actually getting this from the site in question? Because that is no way to calculate anything. Extrapolate: We play 1 ten hour session and break even, and one 10 minute session and win £50. Is our average winrate £150/hr?

If you won £300 in one session and £0 in another your average win rate could quite correctly be called £150 per session - the title of this thread should give a good indication of the limitations of using statistics.

On a more general level - that's why for all statistics you should be looking at a large enough sample size to make it relevant. In this kind of case it would be more relevant if you the average win rate automatically excluded all sessions less than an hour long (or 2 or 3 ...) but I wouldn't expect any website to bother working out how to exclude outliers like this.

£ 150 per session when we broke even in one and won £50 in the other? Doesn't seem quite correct to me...

[skolsuper]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

No.

They are different numbers - the second is calculated as 5 hours winning £100 and 2 hours winning  £100 ----  (20 + 50)/2 = 35 whereas the first is (100 +100)/7 =28.5

Is this a guess or are you actually getting this from the site in question? Because that is no way to calculate anything. Extrapolate: We play 1 ten hour session and break even, and one 10 minute session and win £50. Is our average winrate £150/hr?

from the site

http://www.thehendonmob.com/MyPokerDiary/guide.php?p=8

Wow. Whoever wrote that has no clue about statistics.  It's literally meaningless. It's this sort of charlatanism that gives statistics a bad name.

[doubleup]

As I said earlier the only use I can think of is that it might show that you play badly on long sessions (if you had sufficient samples).  ie your average win rate in long sessions is lower than in short sessions.  Probably quite important for an old boy like Red.

[RED-DOG]

As I said earlier the only use I can think of is that it might show that you play badly on long sessions (if you had sufficient samples).  ie your average win rate in long sessions is lower than in short sessions.  Probably quite important for an old boy like Red.

Oi!

As it happens, my ave session length is, apparently, 8.14 hours, followed by 4 hours of tantric sex, followed by an hour's drive home to Mrs Red.

[Jon MW]

Overall win rate is your complete profit/loss divided by the complete hours played.

Average win rate is an average of each individual hour in a session. So every hours win rate added together divided by the number of sessions.

Think this is right off the top off my head

These two numbers should be no different for any data set, barring rounding errors it's essentially a roundabout way of doing the same calculation.

The only thing I could guess at for the distinction is that one of them takes account of the stakes. Is one in bb and one in £?

They should give different numbers no?

No.

They are different numbers - the second is calculated as 5 hours winning £100 and 2 hours winning  £100 ----  (20 + 50)/2 = 35 whereas the first is (100 +100)/7 =28.5

Is this a guess or are you actually getting this from the site in question? Because that is no way to calculate anything. Extrapolate: We play 1 ten hour session and break even, and one 10 minute session and win £50. Is our average winrate £150/hr?

from the site

http://www.thehendonmob.com/MyPokerDiary/guide.php?p=8

Wow. Whoever wrote that has no clue about statistics.  It's literally meaningless. It's this sort of charlatanism that gives statistics a bad name.

hmmm yeah that is a bit iffy

Given a reasonable sample size and excluding outliers, the difference between an average rate per session and your overall average rate would be a measure of consistency - but that's not particularly how they're presenting it.

[skolsuper]

Sample size has nothing to do with it, the measure is just mathematically wrong and therefore totally unreliable. It gives undue weight to results from shorter sessions, a breakeven or even slightly losing player who quits early when they get ahead would have a positive average win rate by this measure even after a million samples. If that player tried to garner anything from it, they'd play shorter and shorter sessions for absolutely no good reason. Just ignore it, it tells you literally nothing.

[doubleup]

Sample size has nothing to do with it, the measure is just mathematically wrong and therefore totally unreliable. It gives undue weight to results from shorter sessions, a breakeven or even slightly losing player who quits early when they get ahead would have a positive average win rate by this measure even after a million samples. If that player tried to garner anything from it, they'd play shorter and shorter sessions for absolutely no good reason. Just ignore it, it tells you literally nothing.

The overall stat is useless, but if you filtered session length (don't know if you can) it might have some use.