Sklansky bux calculator

[Gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some screenshots of a few 10,000 run random walks. For each hand, -1 or 1 is randomly selected and added to the graph, and the zero line is the expectation line. This would represent 100,000 actual hands, since showdown hands only make up around 10% of all hands for tight players:





Pretty amazing stuff. You can see consistent divergences in a purely random process. Anyone can verify these, the program isn't hard to write.

Don't get me wrong, there is a bias in here due to the selection of showdown hands, but the kind of lines you're seeing aren't as odd as some suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]




THANK GOD FOR RAKEBACK AMIRITE?

[Directrix]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some screenshots of a few 10,000 run random walks.

[/ QUOTE ]

*brain explodes*

[Relvin]

I really wish that this program worked for sit and gos, I know it wouldn't really work for profit, but it could be made to work for expected BB and actual BB won/lost at each blind level right?? That would be AWESOME ....

[MATT111]

So someone rigged the games against me starting with hand 40500.

re1ch$3bner1967@

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some screenshots of a few 10,000 run random walks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice graphs. But to get a better comparison with the graphs people are posting, you should take one of the lines from each graph and then stack pairs of two other lines from that graph on top of it (adding values) to make a new graph, and repeat for each possible pair of two, making a series. Then compare that series to the kinds of graphs people are posting here. I'm not convinced they would be comparable, but I could be wrong. Really it's not the total divergence that bothers me, it's the consistency -- people either seem to be having steadily increasing divergence or steadily decreasing divergence -- I'm curious whether the random walks would show the same with much frequency.

[Phil153]

I don't understand how that would more accurately model the situation. A better model would be adding in variable walk amounts, but that would increase this effect instead of decreasing it. You will expect the average absolute divergence to increase as time goes by while the percentage divergence decreases, as the walk graphs show.

The ones where you see steady increase are clearly incorrect - and these seem to be on the graphs of tight players who play low variance - probably limit players, or very laggy players who steal a lot of pots. Quite a lot of graphs don't fit this trend though.

Regardless, the bottom line is that you can't trust the results in the line graph since there's no accurate way to quantify how your set of showdown hands is skewed. The results in the bar graphs and street by street graphs will be accurate though, because they compare bet vs Sklanksy which will give you a good idea of spots where you leak, when interpreted according to your general results.

I've always gotten a very good idea of how I run with this thing, but that's because I play high variance NL/PL where most of my money goes in on later street, and generally use it as a post session tool at the end of each day.

What I'll be doing is providing an option to limit the analysis to all in hands only, where there is no skew, and adding the other interesting luck stats which are unaffected by showdown skew.

[Rorona]

am i pwned?

[adanthar]

quit poker just before hand 20,000

[ski]

Can someone reputable please e-mail me the pokerev software. I've been trying to get to the website for like 3 days and can't reach it. Please PM me for my e-mail addy.

TY

[kom]

What can I take from this apart from i suck?