where my profit came from - top 12 hands

[rakemeplz]

I dont think the math conversions or whatever makes it mean nothing he's just comparing the amount hes won with said hand compared to the total amount he's won...sorta interesting and something I've thought about myself...why am I posting in this forum?

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you guys REALLY this dense?

Warning! Entering hand holding mode!

The hands listed are the top 12 money winning hands out of 169 possible hands. By far the majority of my hands are overall losers. In fact I lost money on 126 of them. Those losing hands obviously aren't in the table given. If I had listed all 169 hands, the totals that are shown would be obviously correct and verifiable. I left out the boring data, that's all. FYI, the bottom 12 hands contribute -82.2% to my bottom line.



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The Net column has been normalized to produce a net win of 100. In other words the figures in the Net column are % of total win.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does something normallzed to 100 not sum to 100? I'm trying to help but you're not helping me interpret your data.

[TommyO]

You did not win 94% of your money with AA. Normalizing the Net column to 100 does not make it a percentage of you winnings. All this is showing you is that you won about 9x more with AA than you did with 77. About the only thing interesting in your data is that 77 won more than 88.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
You did not win 94% of your money with AA. Normalizing the Net column to 100 does not make it a percentage of you winnings. All this is showing you is that you won about 9x more with AA than you did with 77. About the only thing interesting in your data is that 77 won more than 88.

[/ QUOTE ]

really, you find that interesting?

LV, thank you for the hand-holding, I now understand what you are trying to convey. I too have found this to be interesting. That if I never got dealt AA, I'd be a breakeven player. I mean how messed up is that? If I go to the Bellagio and play for 6 hours and don't get dealt AA I'm SUPPOSED to be down. F THAT!

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You did not win 94% of your money with AA. Normalizing the Net column to 100 does not make it a percentage of you winnings. All this is showing you is that you won about 9x more with AA than you did with 77. About the only thing interesting in your data is that 77 won more than 88.

[/ QUOTE ]

really, you find that interesting?

LV, thank you for the hand-holding, I now understand what you are trying to convey. I too have found this to be interesting. That if I never got dealt AA, I'd be a breakeven player. I mean how messed up is that? If I go to the Bellagio and play for 6 hours and don't get dealt AA I'm SUPPOSED to be down. F THAT!

[/ QUOTE ]

No phone No phone I just want to be alone today

[rakemeplz]

Yeah, Sharp Cook, I guess you were quoting me...anyways the thread is called where my profit came from - top 12 hands and was exactly about that...and I thought it was interesting. However, I just might be a redneck.

Anyways I'll admit I'm way too stupid to know if the math is right or wrong so maybe I am an idiot for assuming its right. Basicly if his winrate is about 1.5 or so bets an hour I dont see it as being too off...so thats why I assumed it was right...but I dont know math just that his math answers give him a rate of 1.5 bb/100 which could be about right. So if he did [censored] up the math it gave him a pretty solid winrate over 300k hands :P.

[LVGamb00ler]

OK, TommyO, I have a question for you.

Example:
I played 221 hands, got dealt AA exactly once and won 8 BB with them, and won 8.5 BB for the session.

Question:
What % of my win is due to AA?

LVGamb00ler

[Badger]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, TommyO, I have a question for you.

Example:
I played 221 hands, got dealt AA exactly once and won 8 BB with them, and won 8.5 BB for the session.

Question:
What % of my win is due to AA?

LVGamb00ler

[/ QUOTE ]
Not enough information given.
This discussion appears to be a matter of perspective.
Yes you could say AA was 94% of your winnings, because if the hand didn't happen you're only up .5BB. However, it's very possible 77 won 12BB on another hand. Does that mean it accounts for 141% of your winnings?

I think the way you're looking at it doesn't make as much sense as if it were normalized to be a percentage of total wins. For example, lets say you play 5 hands
AA wins 5BB
xx wins 4BB
xx wins 2BB
xx loses 4BB
xx loses 1BB

AA accounts for 56% of your winnings.

[LVGamb00ler]

How about if I say that my net win without including AA is only 6% of what it is when AA is included? That is exactly what the numbers tell me.

Does that not imply that 94% of my win is due to AA?

I tried this with the full 300K+ hands but got an Out of Memory error from PT. So I did it with only 143K hands and found that my Net win without AA was slightly negative.

LVGamb00ler