Interesting hand data about domination?

Question

I've been tracking my hands the past few weeks, and I was rather shocked how the odds have been evening out. I always thought I lose most races, but actually, i lose a bunch in a row, then I win a bunch in a row. For either pairs vs overs, or overs vs pairs, I'm nearly exactly in line with published odds. Also interesting is that I catch trips exactly as often as my opponents catch trips vs me. Lower pairs vs higher pairs also comes out exact, about 3 out of 20, and higher pairs vs lower pairs, 24 out of 36.

However, the one place where my data is completely out of whack with conventional thinking is domination situations:

Me dominating them, e.g. AQ vs AJ: 9 wins out of 16

Them dominating me: 8 wins out of 16 (!)

I thought that a "dominated" hand had only a 20-30% chance of winning, but my data clearly shows a nearly 50% chance for dominated hands to win. Is my understanding of the percentages incorrect, or is there an error in my data?

Answer 1

Not enough hands to eliminate dumb luck.

Even if you're a 75-25 favorite, there's a 1 in 36 chance that you'll lose at least 8 of your 16 hands.

1 in 36, that's the odds of rolling box cars.

It does happen, even though the odds say it isn't likely to.

----------

But, now that you're seeing that you catch just as often as your opponents do, here's the key question:

How can someone consistently make money playing poker, even if the odds of them winning the hand are the same as the odds of the opponent winning the hand?

Answer 2

You are a genius.  I see a published pamphlet in your future.

Answer 3

You definitely don't have enough data...these stats are far from abnormal.

Answer 4

there is an error in your data...it's called not enough hands!

it is just sort of whacked out that the percentages in all of the other situations are turning out the way they should over the course of just a couple weeks...really, to get an accurate account of how the percentages should work, you need to get at least a couple months' worth of hands in