Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Found your error. Next time use single equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that's supposed to be a joke, but i don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your equity was only 34,356.88 because you doubled it. So you're running HOT in all-ins to the tune of 14,877.99

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year *DELETED*
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chance this is calculated properly: .05%

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. so thats 1999 to 1. i'll bet $1000 on it at 100 to 1. do we have a bet?

how do you donkeys who don't understand basic math come to these conclusions?

[/ QUOTE ]

oh and thats not the actual code, i removed some uglies from it to try to make it slightly more readable. i just noticed that the total[j] += potsize; line is actually wrong.

this should be a little easier to read:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
const int runs = 100000;
double total[runs];

int count = 0;

srand (time(NULL));

for(int j = 0; j &lt; runs; j++) {
total[j] = 0;
for (int i = 0; i &lt; numba; i++) {
double rando = double(rand()) / RAND_MAX;
if(rando &lt;= equity[i]) {
total[j] += potsize[i];
}
}
if (total[j] &lt;= 49234.87)
count++;
}

printf("You ran worse %d times out of %d.\n",count,runs);
</pre><hr />

for those that care, the program takes my equity percentage after the money went in and the pot size of each all in pot. it then generates a random number between 0 and 1 for each equity/potsize pair, and if that random number is less than my equity for that pot, it adds the pot size to the total for that run.

it does this 100k times. out of those 100k times, it usually "wins" less than the amount i won about 500 times. that's 0.5% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love opening BBV and reading C code. wtf

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year *DELETED*
 

id like to see a vote on who thinks online is rigged and who dont, no representatives plese

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Found your error. Next time use single equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that's supposed to be a joke, but i don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your equity was only 34,356.88 because you doubled it. So you're running HOT in all-ins to the tune of 14,877.99

[/ QUOTE ]

exciting implications etc etc !!!

can some one confirm this? I am too lazy to add up numbers

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year
 

hey guys,
I'm a stats nit too (stats major actually)
stinkypete is dominating this thread, and it is a good thread.

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Found your error. Next time use single equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that's supposed to be a joke, but i don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your equity was only 34,356.88 because you doubled it. So you're running HOT in all-ins to the tune of 14,877.99

[/ QUOTE ]

exciting implications etc etc !!!

can some one confirm this? I am too lazy to add up numbers

[/ QUOTE ]


haha you're a [censored]. "double" is just the variable type. it's a double length floating point number (64 bits rather than 32). it does not involve the doubling of any values.

if i'm being leveled, well done sir.

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your method is that it only measures one portion of the luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

it measures the only easily quantifiable portion of luck. that's all it was intended to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luck is very easy to quantify VERY accurately in the short term using standard deviation, especially over a small sample, where the effects of an unknown winrate are much less.

IF the effect of an unknown winrate is greater than the effect of the variance not included in your method, (not likely at all in short term, especially for a winning player) then your method is better. You won't do the calcs you said you would, or even give up your SD or possible winrates, so it's pointless to argue with you.

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year
 

[ QUOTE ]

Luck is very easy to quantify VERY accurately in the short term using standard deviation, especially over a small sample, where the effects of an unknown winrate are much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're missing the entire point of analyzing your results. the purpose isn't to determine how lucky/unlucky you are in the short term. who cares if you ran approx. 10-15bb/100 below expectation? what does that tell you?

the point of analyses like this is to help determine how much money you can expect to make in the game. that's what my analysis does. it removes a very significant portion of the variance of all in pots by removing the variance that is caused by the fact that there's cards still left to come after the money goes in.

since most of the all in hands are all in preflop, the only real variance left is the variance in hole card distributions. and hole card distributions converge much, much faster than overall winrate, so this analysis gets us to the result we want with only a small hand sample.


[ QUOTE ]
IF the effect of an unknown winrate is greater than the effect of the variance not included in your method, (not likely at all in short term, especially for a winning player) then your method is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're correct on everything here except the part in brackets, which varies case by case. for someone like me with a small number of hands at this limit, i'm pretty sure its not true.

[ QUOTE ]
You won't do the calcs you said you would, or even give up your SD or possible winrates, so it's pointless to argue with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

what calcs did i say i would do? i'm pretty sure i posted all the winrate info i have. but here it is again: -10.81BB/100.

my standard deviation is 23.62ptbb/100 according to pokertracker.

i'm sure you'll have a blast with these numbers, cuz they tell you a lot.

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year
 

wow. many of you in this thread are complete nerds.

pete, your glasses make you run bad, because they are from the future.

Re: i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year
 

[ QUOTE ]
wow. many of you in this thread are complete nerds.

pete, your glasses make you run bad, because they are from the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

i wasn't wearing them