X0RR0

Same game as trying to get a queen on a chessboard to left-down square (0,0) by going only toward this corner.
Let phi be the golden ratio (1+sqrt(5))/2, the n th safe square is (floor(nphi),floor(nphi²)) or opposite to diagonal square.

CMU has said that this year instead of two sigma for 95% confidence interval, they will use just one sigma, for 68% confidence interval.
What is not clear to me is what they take for the standard deviation. Using mirroring hands will decrease the variance for each pair, so I guess this should be taken into account. On the stream, Jason mentions only the std dev for individuals being around 160bb/100h.
Also as the std dev is proportional so the square root of the number of samples, this figure should be multiplied by sqrt(1200) (which is 120K/100) and multiplied by $100 for a bb, yielding magical number 3464.
So for example if std dev is 160bb/100, brains should be down $554 240 to be under one std dev.
If you want the figure in bb/100 over 120K hands as in http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/, you divide the std dev by 34.64: 160/34.64 is 4.62bb/100 over 120K hands.

Do you really think there are less than 10K apples on earth??
About confirmation by evidence and Bayesian statistics, you'll be interested in the Crow paradox (or purple cow): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
Thanks for good video.

Hi Chris,
For hand 2 you say that if BTN knows that SB is folding 100% it will have same range as SB vs BB. There is dead money in the pot but the odds are not the same since it is not BTN money, how does that change things?

"I think he thinks I don't understand": exploitative thinking.
"There is a chance x I don't understand what he says, so I should pay more attention in y cases": GTO thinking. ;)
How can you be sure he does not understand you? Maybe if he says he does you could give him some credit and start to review either your assumptions for what is belief and not math statements; or review his arguments and locate the first one you are not comfortable with and point to it for some clarifications.

Maybe small steps should be taken:
-1 in most 2 people games, Nash equilibrium is a pair of strategies that exist
-2 in a 2-player Nash Equilibrium, no player can increase ev by deviating
-3 in a Nash Equilibrium the ev for both players in not forced to be the same, in a zero-sum game, usually one of the player has +ev and the other has -ev
-4 GTO refers usually to the strategy pair and occasionally to the strategy of one player only (whatever the strategy of other player is)
-5 If one of the players deviate from the Nash equilibrium strategy, usually the other player can increase ev by deviating from Nash Equilibrium. If he stays on his Nash strategy there is no guaranty his ev is bigger.