Re: all in luck calculator
[ QUOTE ]
If I ignore ANY crude but non skewed method for estimating winrate (such as calculating vs a predefined range for unknown hands based on VPIP), then according to you I'm "implicitly estimating" the portion that I'm ignoring. This is incorrect. I'm calculating a smaller portion in return for a greater match with the actual dollar values of play.
[/ QUOTE ]
it's not incorrect. your way would be "correct" if your starting point was zero and you calculated your all in luck from there. but your starting point is your actual results, so my way is actually much more "correct". i understand that it's a little bit counterintuitive, but sometimes what seems like it should be intuitively correct is very much wrong. you have to start from a counterintuitive point (your result rather than zero), so you have to think backwards.
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that your method calculates a somewhat (but not much) larger portion of luck, but it does it crudely and inaccurately, and makes assumptions. This is something I prefer to avoid. When someone looks at an all-in stat (say, overpair vs flopped set example above where a tiny bit goes in on the flop and the overpair wins), I want to avoid it saying that they got lucky for $1000 when in reality the exact opposite happened. Do you really want a program that can show a completely wrong estimate of luck after a session, one that is the complete opposite of what actually happened? Or one that calculates a smaller portion where that portion is verifiable and matches with the dollar value of play?
[/ QUOTE ]
you're worrying too much about the outliers. the reason your method works better for the flopped set/overpair sucks out example is because, as i explained, when youre starting point is your winrate rather than zero, you implicitly estimate all preflop money going in with 100% equity for the person who won the pot. ie. 100% for AA. but it's just an outlier and you would be much better off using the flop equity in almost every situation. consider a situation where you're 50/50 before the flop and a bunch of money goes in, say KhQh vs 2c2d, and the flop comes JhTh2s, so now its like 42/58. the rest of the money goes in on the flop. you're much better off using the flop equity for the entire pot than assigning 100% equity to the winner, as you do now.
and the flop equity will be a much better estimator on average, because flop equities will be much closer to preflop equities than river equities will be. (that should be obvious)
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what's so difficult to understand about a somewhat smaller portion in return for the avoidance of large and counterintuitive inaccuracies over the short term. Especially since the program is most frequently used over a short term session.
[/ QUOTE ]
it's not difficult to understand. i understand that you're wrong. other people in this thread understand that you are wrong. NOBODY agrees with you. the problem is you're focusing too much on what's counterintuitive to you and ignoring what's correct.
and you're wrong about people using the all-in luck mostly for the short term. the point of it is to get a better estimate of your winrate than just looking at your winrate. your "sklansky bux" estimate is more of a short term tool. this is a medium-long term tool. but that doesn't even matter, because the full pot method is better regardless.
[ QUOTE ]
I get that in the long term, the whole pot method can be measure a larger portion (but not necessarily does). But the price isn't worth it, imo. Hence, the program stays like it is, and you get your option in the config file (or get someone else to code it).
[/ QUOTE ]
long-term, short-term, it doesn't matter. the method i described is better regardless.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not discussing this any more, there's no point. We just disagree and have different priorities for the program (I believe you shortstack, so I can appreciate how this may affect you more than full stackers).
[/ QUOTE ]
this has nothing to do with short-stack vs. full-stack, it's a better method regardless of what size stack you play with. if your method were better, it would be even more beneficial for short stacks than full stacks, since they're more often in situations where a large percentage of their stacks go in preflop. the fact is your method is WRONG.
|