[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
your method *may* be a better method for determining short-term luck (though i haven't analyzed it enough to know if that's the case), but my method is a better method for determining luck in the long term

[/ QUOTE ]
What do you base this on? My method is identical to your method, except that your method assumes that the previous streets went in with the same equity as the all-in street. I ignore the component from previous streets, since it can overestimate luck as the relationship between assumed and actual equity will based on how you play (i.e. setminers vs lags).

What use is a metric that uses that whole pot, but doesn't take into account the amount of money that went in on that street? According to your method, it would be perfectly valid to run all preflop all-ins as occurring on the flop - since this situation is identical to one where you saw a flop with $1 left behind and then put it in. That such strange situations can occur - causing very different and unpredictable deviations - suggests to me that this method is probably better avoided.

To try and explain, let's take two scenarios where you lose a hand.

Scenario 1
Preflop: $1000 stacks. You have KK. He has AA. 100% of your stacks go in preflop.

Say 20% equity preflop...your expected total win is $400. Your actual total win is $0. You ran bad to the tune of $400.

Scenario 2

Preflop: $1000 stacks. You have KK. He has AA. 80% of your stacks go in preflop. You flop a set, and the final 20% goes in on the flop.

You have (say) 90% equity on the flop...your expected total win is $1800. Your actual total win is $0. You ran bad to the tune of $1800.

The luck and action in both situations is nearly identical...and yet one gives you a luck factor of $1800, and the other gives you a luck factor of $400. That's a 70PTBB differential between two almost identical situations - I don't like that idea. I prefer something that intuitively matches up with the $ value of EV for the entire hand - and ignores the previous streets where this is unreliable.

The problem with your method arises when your early street and late street equity aren't congruent, and this differential can vary based on WtSD% and typical opponent play. In other words, your deviation can be exaggerated entirely by your style, even though luck doesn't change. I choose to ignore this portion of luck, and calculate a smaller portion where your deviation isn't exaggerated by your style.

But honestly, the differences aren't huge, since in almost all scenarios the majority of the money goes in on the final street. I guess if you shortstack it might be more noticable.

If you have the patience, I'm open to hearing why you think your method is a better estimate of long term deviation (as opposed to short term), and why you think this potential overestimation is worth the somewhat larger portion of luck that's calculated under your method.