|
|
#31
08-07-2007, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: why 10/20 why
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] whats the proper way to read those graphs and how are they supposed to normally look [/ QUOTE ] Sklansky Bucks should = showdown winnings. The green total winnings can be anywhere as that includes hands that didn't show down. If you are weak tight, green will be the worst line, if you get ppl to fold a lot your green will be higher. [/ QUOTE ] this thing doesnt seem accurate at all then. is it supposed to be like some gigantic gimmick dick waving thing or what? [/ QUOTE ] The expected total winnigns tab is actually decently accurate i think because it takes into account all those hands you win without showdown, etc, though I think it's still obviously far from a perfect program Like you can see in Skiier's last graph that he was losing anyway. It's easy to run "bad" when you're getting the money in bad to begin with [/ QUOTE ] oh comon, that's obv running bad. throw in 2 AKs running into KK (which happened), add a bad or tilty call, a set under set or some other cooler and things look different. running 8 buyins under equity is pretty significant. [/ QUOTE ] Set under set or KK vs AA doesnt affect how far you are under equity, it just lowers your equity altogether. This sample is obv laughable in terms of equity, although you werent supposed to win money. 
|
|
#33
08-07-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why 10/20 why
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] whats the proper way to read those graphs and how are they supposed to normally look [/ QUOTE ] Sklansky Bucks should = showdown winnings. The green total winnings can be anywhere as that includes hands that didn't show down. If you are weak tight, green will be the worst line, if you get ppl to fold a lot your green will be higher. [/ QUOTE ] this thing doesnt seem accurate at all then. is it supposed to be like some gigantic gimmick dick waving thing or what? [/ QUOTE ] The expected total winnigns tab is actually decently accurate i think because it takes into account all those hands you win without showdown, etc, though I think it's still obviously far from a perfect program Like you can see in Skiier's last graph that he was losing anyway. It's easy to run "bad" when you're getting the money in bad to begin with [/ QUOTE ] oh comon, that's obv running bad. throw in 2 AKs running into KK (which happened), add a bad or tilty call, a set under set or some other cooler and things look different. running 8 buyins under equity is pretty significant. [/ QUOTE ] Set under set or KK vs AA doesnt affect how far you are under equity, it just lowers your equity altogether. This sample is obv laughable in terms of equity, although you werent supposed to win money. [/ QUOTE ] it lowers my expected total win.
|
|
#35
08-08-2007, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why 10/20 why
I had a -$78k difference in Sklansky bucks at the beginning of this year at 10/20. ~35k hands. Really ruined my year, b/c the Neteller fiasco happened like 2 days later.
|
|
#36
08-08-2007, 12:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why 10/20 why
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] whats the proper way to read those graphs and how are they supposed to normally look [/ QUOTE ] Sklansky Bucks should = showdown winnings. The green total winnings can be anywhere as that includes hands that didn't show down. If you are weak tight, green will be the worst line, if you get ppl to fold a lot your green will be higher. [/ QUOTE ] this thing doesnt seem accurate at all then. is it supposed to be like some gigantic gimmick dick waving thing or what? [/ QUOTE ] The expected total winnigns tab is actually decently accurate i think because it takes into account all those hands you win without showdown, etc, though I think it's still obviously far from a perfect program Like you can see in Skiier's last graph that he was losing anyway. It's easy to run "bad" when you're getting the money in bad to begin with [/ QUOTE ] oh comon, that's obv running bad. throw in 2 AKs running into KK (which happened), add a bad or tilty call, a set under set or some other cooler and things look different. running 8 buyins under equity is pretty significant. [/ QUOTE ] Set under set or KK vs AA doesnt affect how far you are under equity, it just lowers your equity altogether. This sample is obv laughable in terms of equity, although you werent supposed to win money. [/ QUOTE ] it lowers my expected total win. [/ QUOTE ] equity = expected total win
|
|
#39
08-08-2007, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why 10/20 why
yes skier, around 3 weeks ago. stars and ft. sry if i came across as poopy your obv a sick hsp player
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
