Power test gives power=0.995 I am running a power test for an experiment where I have 122 controls (n1) and 184 experimental sets (n2). I selected a medium effect size of 0.5. I used the pwr.2p2n.test function in the pwr package, which is for a power calculation for two proportions (different sample sizes).
    pwr.2p2n.test(h = 0.5, n1 = 122, n2 = 184, sig.level = 0.05)  

The calculated power is 0.99.
Knowing that power values are between 0 and 1, I was wondering if such a high value indicates that something is wrong in my analysis?
 A: Maybe the following reasoning can help you understand why 0.99 seems a suspiciously high power.
An $h = 0.5$ is about the difference between the probability of success 0.7 vs 0.46 (ES.h(0.7, 0.46) = 0.49). With a sample size of 153 in each group, this is the difference between 107 and 70 successes which is quite noticeable especially since $\alpha = 0.05$ is not very stringent.
This simulation verifies it is correct:
    p1 <- 0.7
    p2 <- 0.46

    n1 <- 122
    n2 <- 184
    
    nreps <- 10000
    set.seed(12345)
    y1 <- rbinom(n= nreps, size= n1, p= p1)
    y2 <- rbinom(n= nreps, size= n2, p= p2)
    
    pval <- rep(NA, nreps)
    for(i in 1:nreps) {
        pval[i] <- prop.test(c(y1[i], y2[i]), n= c(n1, n2), 
                             p= NULL)$p.value
    }

    (power <- sum(pval < 0.05) / nreps) # <- 0.9851 as expected

But even if there is nothing wrong with your calculation, 0.99 power may still be too optimistic because it assumes your counts come from a binomial distribution. In real life, especially in biology, the binomial is too narrow and doesn't account for variation other than the random sampling. Maybe this is why your intuition doesn't match your power analysis. Here I simulate counts where the probability of success is a random variable with Beta distribution.
Even if on average the simulated counts are as expected (~70% success for n1 and ~46% for n2) the power is quite a bit lower:
    nreps <- 10000
    set.seed(12345)
    y1 <- rbinom(n= nreps, size= n1, p= rbeta(n= nreps, 
                 6.65, 2.85))
    y2 <- rbinom(n= nreps, size= n2, p= rbeta(n= nreps, 
                 5.25, 6.17))
    
    pval <- rep(NA, nreps)
    for(i in 1:nreps) {
        pval[i] <- prop.test(c(y1[i], y2[i]), 
                        n= c(n1, n2), p= NULL)$p.value
    }

    (power <- sum(pval < 0.05) / nreps) # 0.775


The parameters of the Beta distributions above are such that they give mean 0.7 for n1 and 0.46 for n2 with variance 0.02 (no particular reason to pick that variance). I used this function posted at Calculating the parameters of a Beta distribution using the mean and variance:
    estBetaParams <- function(mu, var) {
      alpha <- ((1 - mu) / var - 1 / mu) * mu ^ 2
      beta <- alpha * (1 / mu - 1)
      return(params = list(alpha = alpha, beta = beta))
    }

A: The pwr.2p2n.test function is based on the testing of proportions with Cohen's h and the variance stabilizing transformation (See for the original source of this statistic: Jacob Cohen 1966)
$$\Phi = 2 \text{arcsin} \sqrt{p}$$
These $\Phi$ are approximately normal distributed with variance $\frac{1}{N}$
For the difference between two of these transformed variables
$$h=\Phi_2-\Phi_1$$
we will expect a variance equal to $\frac{1}{n_1}+ \frac{1}{n_2}$ or standard deviation $\sqrt{\frac{n_1+n_2}{n_1n_2}}$.
If we let, for simplicity $n= n_1 = n_2$ then this becomes $\sqrt{2/n}$.

So for a value of $n \approx 150$ you get that the standard deviation of $h$ will be approximately $0.1$, several orders below your aimed effect size of $0.5$, and thus quite powerfull.

See:
Jacob Cohen 1966, An Alternative to Marascuilo's "large-sample multiple comparisons" for proportions, Psychological Bulletin http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0020418
A: Comment:  Not sure exactly what you're asking. Possibly relevant output from a recent release of Minitab, where both
samples have to be the same size.
Power and Sample Size 

Test for Two Proportions

Testing comparison p = baseline p (versus ≠)
Calculating power for baseline p = 0.7
α = 0.05


               Sample
Comparison p    Size    Power
        0.20      50  0.99980
        0.20     100  1.00000
        0.35      50  0.95043
        0.35     100  0.99931

The sample size is for each group.


A: On page 187 in the Cohen (1988) book, which you referenced in a comment, there is actually a table showing that with $h=0.5$ and $n=200$ the power is larger than $0.995$. So nothing is wrong with the calculation.
However, you have a very large sample size for what Cohen considers a "medium effect size", thus a large power is not suprising. When performing any power analysis, the magnitude of an effect should always be seen in relation to the sample size. In very small sample sizes, "large effects" might actually be small, and vice versa. For example, when planning animal experiments, you rarely see effect sizes below $d=1.5$. Cohen considered $d=0.8$ as a "large effect" but I have not yet met a single researcher who does animal experiments and who would be happy to report such an effect size in a publication.
