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

LA,

I was excited when poker EV came out because it did with a click of the button what I used to do by hand. I tested a real data set of my first 8k PLO hands for the adjustment to winrate calcs. I hoped it would help a lot. It didn't really. And the standard deviation/variance wasn't lowered much. I put it together as an article for the 2+2 mag but somewhat lost interest - I guess enough ppl are interested in the subject so I'll finish it.

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

Troll,

Well basically it has some of the same troubles that humans have. It can't predict all the factors that go into a poker winrate. There's a problem with variance as it relates to it's application to poker, so this program doesn't resolve that because it only adjusts for the randomness of the normal distribution, which was already inherent in your standard deviation anyway.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Troll,

Well basically it has some of the same troubles that humans have. It can't predict all the factors that go into a poker winrate. There's a problem with variance as it relates to it's application to poker, so this program doesn't resolve that because it only adjusts for the randomness of the normal distribution, which was already inherent in your standard deviation anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are saying, but what the result of my analysis tells me is that your true winrate (i.e. the one that only the poker god knows) over a finite number of hands cannot be known within a smallish confidence interval because of (at least) two factors using regular winrate statistical analysis.

1. The variance of big all-in hands (which PokerEV can readily solve for you).
2. The cards your opponent actually ends up having in the big all-in/showdown hands from the range you have deduced. (This you already mentioned.)

#1 is easy enough to calculate, but as I mentioned, it doesn't help much.
#2 is more difficult to calculate but doable. I may do this, but I think the answer will be that it too doesn't help much. Even if you have 10,000 hands and ~100-200 big pots where you could examine the hand and enter a reasonable hand range, my guess now is that this really wouldn't help you much. I think this area of "randomness" will quickly regress to the mean (as will the chance of getting a whole bunch of low probability events, like set over set in preflop raised HU pots or quads beating straight flushes).

**There is a 3rd reason that has emerged for me that I believe better explains the difficulties for not being able to know winrate. But it needs more work before I'm ready to ramble on that subject.

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

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstand regression to the mean. Let's say you are running good by 3 buyins now. In a million hands time, you can expect to be running good by 3 buyins, + or - whatever. Not by zero buyins.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you misunderstand regression to the mean. Let's say you are running good by 3 buyins now. In a million hands time, you can expect to be running good by 3 buyins, + or - whatever. Not by zero buyins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, just the fallacy of the law of averages creeps into my mind even though I know it's, well, a fallacy lol

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

where can i find a collection of strategy posts? At the small and micro stakes thread in NLHE forum they are stickied.

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

here all the threads are really good, so there isn't much point stickying particularly special ones.

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

[ QUOTE ]
here all the threads are really good, so there isn't much point stickying particularly special ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roundtower is the 100% greatest. You never know if he is leveling you, being for real, or putting you down. But irregardless it's all done in a very gentlemanly manner!

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

[ QUOTE ]
here all the threads are really good, so there isn't much point stickying particularly special ones.

[/ QUOTE ]



awesome.

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

joiAJFLJAFASKFJ [censored]