all in luck calculator

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
ie. in the long run, your method will underestimate the luck factor. in the very short run, it may be a better estimator in extreme cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pete,

I've stated that it calculates a somewhat smaller portion of luck. But in almost all cases, most of the money goes in on the all-in street, so it only misses a fraction of luck, and IMO is worth is for avoiding the very counterintuitive results I described above.

Consider the effect of playing a set miner where 10% of your money goes in preflop with AA/KK and the rest goes in on the flop, but only if your opponent catches a set.

Under this scenario, your luck will be incorrectly magnified, as the portion of the pot that went in preflop will be counted as having the same equity as the flop, when in reality it does not. This will be even more pronounced for shorter stacks.

Now consider the case where you have AK for TPTK and pot bet the flop. Your opponent calls with a straight draw or underpair, and folds the turn if he misses, but CRAI if he hits. In that case, your luck may be magnified by as much as 20-30% over what actually happened. These are common scenarios, and given that opponent late street folding is far more common than getting all-in, and that people usually get all in after catching a big improvement on the flop or turn, they will happen often.

But I know you disagree, so if you don't find anyone else to code this, I'll put an option in a config file in the next version to calculate EV based on the total pot size.

[Adrian20XX]

[ QUOTE ]
Adrian - this is the way it's done on the game analysis tab. The method is flawed as the results can skew depending on how you play,because you self select hands that go to showdown.

If you prefer to use this method, check "all-in before river" on the game analysis graphs tab.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil,
Would you mind to explain why this method is skewed? I really think you are seeing something I don't see, as clearly you have thought much more of this problem than me.
TIA & Regards ...

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

Consider the effect of playing a set miner where 10% of your money goes in preflop with AA/KK and the rest goes in on the flop, but only if your opponent catches a set.

Under this scenario, your luck will be incorrectly magnified, as the portion of the pot that went in preflop will be counted as having the same equity as the flop, when in reality it does not. This will be even more pronounced for shorter stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

this doesn't matter, because the times he doesn't hit his set you win 100% of the pot and the skews balance out.

leaving out the money that went on previous streets will reduce the magnitude of your calculated "luck" and hence has the same problems that the calculate-every-street method does, just on a smaller scale.

[allyasia]

How about this
since this is about luck
why not calculator at time when all the money goes in?
say i have TT vs AA
AA slow play, and i hit my set on the turn.
AA only have 5% of chance to win, and how many time did i get suckout.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider the effect of playing a set miner where 10% of your money goes in preflop with AA/KK and the rest goes in on the flop, but only if your opponent catches a set.

Under this scenario, your luck will be incorrectly magnified, as the portion of the pot that went in preflop will be counted as having the same equity as the flop, when in reality it does not. This will be even more pronounced for shorter stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

this doesn't matter, because the times he doesn't hit his set you win 100% of the pot and the skews balance out.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you read/understood the post and examples.

[ QUOTE ]
and hence has the same problems that the calculate-every-street method does, just on a smaller scale.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol? You have it backwards. For one, they're not at all related. The problem with the calculate-every-street method is that the self selection of showdown hands can cause early street EV to only be displayed after you've sucked out (for example), thus showing you luckier than you are on that early street component.

With this method, the line doesn't deviate except when considering the difference between the all-in street equity and the winnings from that street. There is no earlier street EV. With your method, the early street EV is assumed from the later street EV. It's pretty obvious which one is flawed, imo.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adrian - this is the way it's done on the game analysis tab. The method is flawed as the results can skew depending on how you play,because you self select hands that go to showdown.

If you prefer to use this method, check "all-in before river" on the game analysis graphs tab.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil,
Would you mind to explain why this method is skewed? I really think you are seeing something I don't see, as clearly you have thought much more of this problem than me.
TIA & Regards ...

[/ QUOTE ]
I read over it to quickly....sorry. I'll have to think about it to come up with an example. One of the problems with it is computation expense as well I think.

[flight2q]

Shorty bets $4 (J9), Hero raises to $12 (AK), others fold, Shorty calls.
Flop KJ4. Shorty bets $8 (all-in). Hero calls.
Turn 3. River 9.

This is $20*(80%-20%) = $12 of mad skillz and ($32) of all-in luck. It is not $8*(80%-20%) = $4.80 of skill and ($12.80) of all-in luck. Obviously there is luck in the cards gotten preflop and flop too, but that is not what all-in luck is about.

So, just check "all-in before river" to get correct result. Wait a minute, there is no "all-in before river" on the Luck Graph tab, only on the Game Analysis Graphs tab! Is the Luck Graph computed correctly, i.e. $32 of bad luck in the example above?

[flight2q]

Sorry for double posting.

I'm guessing this is the way people like stinkypete and me get the all-in luck adjusted equity the way we want it:

Game Analysis Graphs

all-in before river UNCHECKED
Actual Winnings: 5.1 BB/100
Equity Adjusted: 6.0 BB/100 (apparently irrelevant)

all-in before river CHECKED
Actual Winnings: -0.4 BB/100
Equity Adjusted: 0.9 BB/100

Luck Graphs

Actual Winnings: 5.1 BB/100
Equity Adjusted: 5.3 BB/100 (apparently irrelevant)

Equity Adjusted Based Solely on All-In Luck Using Total Pot Amount at All-In Point:

5.1 + 0.9 - (-0.4) = 6.4 BB/100

Please tell me if this is right, Phil. Thanks.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider the effect of playing a set miner where 10% of your money goes in preflop with AA/KK and the rest goes in on the flop, but only if your opponent catches a set.

Under this scenario, your luck will be incorrectly magnified, as the portion of the pot that went in preflop will be counted as having the same equity as the flop, when in reality it does not. This will be even more pronounced for shorter stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

this doesn't matter, because the times he doesn't hit his set you win 100% of the pot and the skews balance out.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you read/understood the post and examples.


[/ QUOTE ]

i read all your examples, and you either didn't read mine or you're too stuck in thinking that you can't possibly be wrong and don't care to listen to someone smarter than you. i'm not going to get into a huge argument over this - you demonstrated that you're not very smart by implementing sklansky bux the way you orginally did and insisting it wouldn't skew results. and someone who's as stubborn as you, while not being particularly smart, is not the kind of person i like to waste my time arguing with.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and hence has the same problems that the calculate-every-street method does, just on a smaller scale.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol? You have it backwards. For one, they're not at all related. The problem with the calculate-every-street method is that the self selection of showdown hands can cause early street EV to only be displayed after you've sucked out (for example), thus showing you luckier than you are on that early street component.


[/ QUOTE ]

okay, maybe the problem isn't the "same" as the problem with the sklansky bux method, but it shows the same flawed way of thinking.

[ QUOTE ]

With this method, the line doesn't deviate except when considering the difference between the all-in street equity and the winnings from that street. There is no earlier street EV. With your method, the early street EV is assumed from the later street EV. It's pretty obvious which one is flawed, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

there's no flaw. we're trying to measure how lucky/unlucky you get on the cards that come after all the money is gone in. we don't care about how lucky or unlucky we got on earlier streets.


here's somethign else for you to think about, maybe this way you'll be able to understand it:

AA vs 22 gets 95% of the money in preflop ($950 each). 22 flops a set ($50 each goes in). by your method AA runs bad by about $10 by not sucking out. by my method AA runs bad by about $100. by your method 22 runs good by about $10. by my method 22 runs good by about $100.

to put it another way, when using these calculations to adjust your winrates, your model assumes that 22 got the preflop money in with 100% equity.

[BUSTO]

[ QUOTE ]

to put it another way, when using these calculations to adjust your winrates, your model assumes that 22 got the preflop money in with 100% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

and this is the key here. it's better to estimate the money going in on earlier streets with the same equities as on the final street, than it is to assume it went in with 100% equity for the person who actually ends up winning the pot. in very rare cases this estimate will be worse than your method's estimate (like in your KK vs AA example where the equities go 20-90-10), but on average my estimate will be much more accurate.

-stinkypete