i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year

[sublime]

i love how pete embraces the hate. so my kinda guy.

[stinkypete]

and btw mr. stats nit:

i never claimed these results mean i'm running bad overall. just that i'm running bad on all in hands after the money is in. (the two are HIGHLY correlated though)

[sledghammer]

When I say cherrypicked, I mean that you noticed that your allin's were running bad, so you analyzed those. If you had a lot of coolers, you would be analyzing that, if you ran bad with aces, you would pick that. The best way to gauge how bad you are running is to just use standard deviation and winrate, which might be impossible if you don't have a good previous sample size. Your method definitely gives an indication of how you are running, but it isn't close to the whole story, and only using it when it is really significant is misleading.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say cherrypicked, I mean that you noticed that your allin's were running bad, so you analyzed those. If you had a lot of coolers, you would be analyzing that, if you ran bad with aces, you would pick that.

[/ QUOTE ]

how would i analyze having a lot of coolers? i'm pretty sure i had a lot of coolers - it seemed like every time i pushed a weakish ace i was up against a bigger ace or aces. i'd love to analyze that, but i don't know how.

i ran bad with aces. i only got them 5 times. i didn't analyze it further. i picked all ins because its the simplest, most effective way to analyze how you're running.

[ QUOTE ]
The best way to gauge how bad you are running is to just use standard deviation and winrate, which might be impossible if you don't have a good previous sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

even if you knew your standard deviation and winrate (which is impossible), you could do no meaningful analysis because your winrate changes based on game conditions and how you're playing - and unless you're a bot, you're not gonna play the same all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Your method definitely gives an indication of how you are running, but it isn't close to the whole story, and only using it when it is really significant is misleading.

[/ QUOTE ]

shortstacking, it's very close to the whole story. but like i said a million times, i'm not even claiming it's the whole story.

you're clinging to this "cherrypicking" claim. but tell me one other feasible method of estimating how you're running. i'll run the numbers. i would have already done it if i could think of one. this is the only simple way that is statistically significant.

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
it's expected that you'll get all in with the worst of it more often than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont understand this statement, am i missing the part about how you win money when getting money in behind more often than not?

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's expected that you'll get all in with the worst of it more often than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont understand this statement, am i missing the part about how you win money when getting money in behind more often than not?

[/ QUOTE ]

usually i'm the one pushing all in. i'm pushing 20BB into a roughly 5BB pot. the openraiser should only be calling my push if he has > 40% equity, getting about 25 to 17. if he's only calling when he has 40% or more equity against my range, he's more than a 50% favourite on average when he does call.

it's profitable for me because i make money when he folds.

[profEERNIE]

you suck at coding, that is so badly implemented

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
you suck at coding, that is so badly implemented

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm aware. it's a 5 minute hack. eat poo.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]

even if you knew your standard deviation and winrate (which is impossible), you could do no meaningful analysis because your winrate changes based on game conditions and how you're playing - and unless you're a bot, you're not gonna play the same all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standard deviation is easy to know, it converges very quickly. I don't know what kind of sample size you have for your winrate, but it is possible to get a good idea of it. Winrate changes based on game conditions are just part of the standard deviation (so that you are really estimating wr+e, where e is your actual deviation from wr). If you want, you can estimate your winrate as less, since you said you were playing bad. I don't think that a 200ptbb swing over 1700 hands will be anywhere near .5%, unless shortstackers have some crazy low SD compared to normal players. 4 buyin swings are very common.

[mjkidd]

Dude -- wtf is with the stick up your ass? All pete said was that his expectation in the last 77 all ins he had was 68k and he only won 49k, and that this was a very improbable event. Settle down buddy. Settle down.