i just analyzed my 25/50 results for this year

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


you can say that game conditions, tilt, etc are all a part of the standard deviation, but when these things change and you're dealing with a small sample of hands, you have no way of determining how much of your downswing was bad play or bad games and how much of it was running bad.

the goal, at least in my case, is to measure luck and luck only, and that means using statistics that are independent of tilt and bad game selection.

my method does a much better job of measuring luck than any winrate/sd calculations will over a short sample.

in fact, if you ignored how much you actually won from all in pots and used my method to calculate projected winnings, you could get an idea of what your winrate is much faster than by simply playing and going by what your results are. in fact, even over a very large sample, using my method you'll get a more accurate prediction of your true winrate.

and yes, shortstackers have a much lower SD. as a self-proclaimed stats nit, that should be obvious to you. the problem is you have all the book knowledge but you don't really understand what you know.

a 20 short buyin downswing is very significant.

[DeathDonkey]

Pete, did you offer the big bet on GRE quant score because you got 800 so you can only be tied? Everyone gets 800 on that dude. I think you should take him up on that attractiveness bet and get your accent going strong though.

Run better, or come back to limit we miss you $$$

-DeathDonkey

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Pete, did you offer the big bet on GRE quant score because you got 800 so you can only be tied? Everyone gets 800 on that dude. I think you should take him up on that attractiveness bet and get your accent going strong though.

Run better, or come back to limit we miss you $$$

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

haha i know everyone gets 800. but freerolling rules yo.

if you stake me i'll take that bet against snagglepuss. i can do a pretty good patrik antonius accent.

[iMsoLucky0]

I just want to applaud stinkypete for the way he has handled this thread.

I also want to chide him for being a shortstacker.

That's all. I'm drunk. And done.

[DJ Sensei]

Mason and I actually were working on some equity calculation software, but we never got past early prototypes. Would be sweet, but many hands dont go to showdown, so working out how to deal with that (hand ranges, estimation, just leaving it out?) was the biggest problem.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Mason and I actually were working on some equity calculation software, but we never got past early prototypes. Would be sweet, but many hands dont go to showdown, so working out how to deal with that (hand ranges, estimation, just leaving it out?) was the biggest problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

proof that ratholing >>>>> full stack

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
my method does a much better job of measuring luck than any winrate/sd calculations will over a short sample.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand how the normal distribution works. winrate/sd calcs will measure your deviation from your winrate over a given sample regardless of sample size( unless it is waaaay too small), which is basically the definition of luck. The only problems are a) knowing your winrate (big problem, and I assume impossible in your case) b)filtering out bad play/bad games, if for some reason that's necessary. The problem with your method is that it only measures one portion of the luck. So the WR/sd method is too broad, and yours is too narrow.

[ QUOTE ]
used my method to calculate projected winnings, you could get an idea of what your winrate is much faster than by simply playing and going by what your results are

[/ QUOTE ]
This is probably true, but you need to account for the variation in your equity, which you would know much better than me.

It is possible to combine both methods into a model for winrate. I think it would work to just change the outcome of every hand into sklansky bucks; then the SD would have that component of variance completely removed, and you could run WR calcs no problem. How to do this in practice with PT i have no idea. From there you could determine your average equity when AIPF, and then REALLY determine how you were running during a particular stretch, and use that info to try different strategies with much better feedback.

Do you mind sharing your WR/SD? I've always wanted data from a shortstacker to apply to mtts.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with your method is that it only measures one portion of the luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

it measures the only easily quantifiable portion of luck. that's all it was intended to do.

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chances of running this bad or worse: ~0.5%

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah right let's see some math

[/ QUOTE ]





#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>


int
main(int argc, char **argv) {

double equity[77] = {

[/ QUOTE ]

Found your error. Next time use single equity.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

Found your error. Next time use single equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think that's supposed to be a joke, but i don't get it.