[Phil153]

No insults required Pete...my testing prior to beta released hadn't revealed a skew being significant, so I hadn't thought it was a huge issue. After seeing enough graphs it was obvious that there was. That's why it's a beta and not a final product.

[ QUOTE ]
there's no flaw. we're trying to measure how lucky/unlucky you get on the cards that come after all the money is gone in. we don't care about how lucky or unlucky we got on earlier streets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly!! Which is why I do it the way I do it now.

[ QUOTE ]
AA vs 22 gets 95% of the money in preflop ($950 each). 22 flops a set ($50 each goes in). by your method AA runs bad by about $10 by not sucking out. by my method AA runs bad by about $100. by your method 22 runs good by about $10. by my method 22 runs good by about $100.

[/ QUOTE ]
And? You forget the flip side, which invalidates your point completely (see below). I've already stated I measure a smaller amount to avoid the difficulties of your method.

Consider the case where 50% of the money goes in preflop. A comparison of methods:

I calculate on the $1000 flop contributions and ignore the rest. You calculate on a $2000 preflop + flop contributions.

When AA loses:

Me: AA runs bad by $100
You: AA runs bad by $200

When AA wins:

Me: AA runs good to the tune of $900
You: AA runs goods to the tune of $1800

Which one is screwed up now? You've overestimated AA's genuine, dollar matched luck by $900 more than I have.

I don't know whether your example was a genuine mistake or not, but it only looks at one side of the equation and represents no inherent advantage to your method - since it will simply be over or under estimating by larger amounts. I prefer to match luck with the dollar values of the street where the money goes in, measure a slightly smaller portion and thereby avoid massively overestimating people's good/bad luck in certain scenarios.