[sledghammer]

[ 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.