Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those who don't know, his screen name is <font color="green">Sorry Ribs, I don't think it's proper to post disclosing someone's screen name. (If someone has done that to you already, let me know where by P.M. and I'll go back and edit out the offending item). - Buzz</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Buzzz ftw!

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I didn't announce your screen name because I don't know it! I said it was "Tuff_Fish" which was a pretty obvious joke I thought [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

http://tuffish.ytmnd.com/ For Buzz. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *
 

I got it all-in on the turn with greater than 50% equity against top set tonight. Not an easy task.

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *
 

[ QUOTE ]
I got it all-in on the turn with greater than 50% equity against top set tonight. Not an easy task.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got it all in with top set (warning sick hand!) with greater than 50% equity
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1422315
Not sure how I got paid off on the river though [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can someone remind me which way the equity-adjusted win-rate in PokerEV skews? Like if you're LAG, will it tend to overstate or understate?

[/ QUOTE ]
pretty sure the "luck graph", which I believe is the one you are talking about, isn't skewed. The other graph (with showdown winnings, total winnings and sklansky bucks) is skewed somehow no matter how you play, but I'm not really sure what that graph means in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

no i meant the "equity adjusted" number under the "statistics" tab.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm I can't tell where that number comes from, what it means, or whether it is ever meant to be a long term approximation of how you will run.

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * * *DELETED*
 

Poker EV thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post11149400

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those who don't know, his screen name is <font color="green">Sorry Ribs, I don't think it's proper to post disclosing someone's screen name. (If someone has done that to you already, let me know where by P.M. and I'll go back and edit out the offending item). - Buzz</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Buzzz ftw!

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I didn't announce your screen name because I don't know it! I said it was "Tuff_Fish" which was a pretty obvious joke I thought [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

http://tuffish.ytmnd.com/ For Buzz. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

haha, everything TF does is still gold, not sure wtf he's doing with some california petition for online gambling though. He has written into it some sort of 1-table at a time thing which is pretty hilarious

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *
 

Ribbo - Please accept my sincere apology.

I should have realized it was a joke.

At the time it sounded real to me.

Again, I'm sorry. I owe you.

Buzz

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *
 

I really want to make a joke about how me telling Ribbo to die was also a joke, but I think I'll hold off Buzz [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * *
 

I need someone to slap me around a couple times and remind me that a tide of mean-reversion is coming my way soon. I just sit here at work and I can't stop thinking abuot stacking idiots later tonight. Feel pretty god danm invincible right now having gone 3/3 in my biggest coinflips (i'm only running a little good in coin flips right now, but any that have been over 150bbs I have won, including the one that I posted a few pages ago which technically counts as 350bbs or a 700bb pot beacause I was shot taking).

I don't know whether admitting to myself that a downturn is coming will be a self-fulfilling prophecy or whether it will help me cope when I lose 4 of my next 5 coin flips. I feel like whenever I start to think about things like that I start forcing more all-in situations on the flop as a way of maybe "accepting my fate" of running bad for a few sessions. I keep bouncing things around in my head about the idea of long-run vs. short-run probabilities.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a very mathematically inclined person, but it's still sort of a strange idea to grasp. So I've won 5 of my last 7 coin flips, so what? The next one is still 50/50. Yet you still know the mean-reversion monster is going to come out from under your bed to have a snack on your bankroll. Trying to think about the convergence of the long-run and the short-run is what is kind of strange. The long-run has no influence on the current coin flip, yet the current coin flip fits somewhere in the long-run scheme of things.

/rant

Re: * * * * AUGUST LOW CONTENT THREAD * * * * *DELETED*
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your "equity-adjusted winrate" according to PokerEV is your total winrate plus the difference between your Sklansky bucks and showdown winnings. If you get sucked out on, and fold correctly, then you don't get the Sklansky bucks for being ahead on earlier streets that you would had you paid off.

Thus, you may have better luck than average among hands that went to showdown even on an average overall luck sample since on the ones where you got bad luck on the river, you correctly threw your hand away.

[/ QUOTE ]


Iggy,

Good point. Right so it divides your hands into showdowns and non showdowns. Non-showdowns it just treats as uncertainties and awards you whatever amount you’ve won or lost without showing down. Showdowns it adjusts for the departure of the cards from whatever the normal distribution results should have been. So what you’re saying is good players win Sklansky bucks by sometimes not showing down. So suppose you’re running badly and your opponents are playing predictively. You’ll be winning lots of Sklansky bucks but pokerEV will underestimate how badly you are running. Likewise for bad players it won’t deduct points for bad calls they make that get lucky but just don’t get shown down. This would shorten the endpoints of winrates in the distribution. Another question is to what degree do Sklansky bucks estimate theoretical winrates?

All the equity adjusted win-rate adjusts for is the normal randomness of poker, the independent parts. The card distributions. It doesn't, like pokerstove, calculate equity vs hand ranges, only the particular. The way it doesn't do any adjusting, and the way it can’t estimate a departure from the real results is the human parts of poker, like reads, bluffs, laydowns, and the effects of tilt(without showing down). Some combination of pokerstove and pokerEV would be better, but damn that would take some serious computing power. There would even be some problems with a program like that but that would require a discussion of poker epistemology.