Ouch no...
Actually that would be completely bogus.
HEM's AIEV calculator is not rubbish, it tries to be correct. It's SECT that is rubbish
A player that is all-in before the river is all-in before the river and the only proper calculation is computing his AIEV from the street he's all-in. There's no such thing as a "street by street" EV that can be accurately (or even closely or even very approximately) computed.
The only thing that *could* be computed would be your EV on a deal where you commited yourself at some street and that then went to showdown. But then one would need a *very* precise definition of one commiting oneself means. Any other tentative is delusional and it can be proved to fall under one the many gambler fallacy.
Say you're all-in preflop and two other players are covering and going to showdown, without having any of these two opponents being all-in (but they go to showdown).
You can compute the AIEV for 'pot 0' for both you and the other two players. But there's no "at every street EV". The only momemnt where we have perfect information in such a deal is for pot 0 (the pot you can claim being all-in preflop and being covered by two other players).
There's no "street by street" EV for pot0. There's AIEV for pot0 and it can be accurately computed and it's that value that HM computes (if HM's AIEV algorithm is correct).
What I mean is for you, by being all-in preflop, you don't care what the actual streets cards are. Your AIEV does *not* depend on the flop cards, nor turn card, nor river card. Your AIEV is fixed as soon as you are allin: complete information is available and your AIEV can be computed (as well as the AIEV for that pot for opponents going to showdown).
In addition to that, in that same example, you cannot compute any EV for the the opponents going to showdown without being all-in: their very decision to stay in the deal has been influenced by the actual flop, turn and river cards. SECT fails to understand that and hence compute some ethereal "EV" on deals that went to showdown, failing to realize that in a lot of case people folded because they didn't hit the flop/turn/river.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is what this calculator does.
AIEV is taken as the probability of winning the hand at the moment all the money went in, it is not then subsequently calculated on each street.
It is calculated on each street if the players were not all in on the previous street.
Have a look at the example in my post here:
http://www.holdemmanager.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=20227
This is the figure I think this is calculating. My example resulted in an actual loss of 100 BB, but the figure produced here would be a gain of 37.45 BB. (All in preflop would produce a gain of 65BB on average).
So the EV figure produced here does not have any bias in it at all - it should always run close to the true amount won over time.
If you look at the author's graph, I would imagine this is fairly typical. It will sometimes be above, sometimes below the true winnings line but should always be close.
You say that SECT fails to take into consideration the fact players do not continue after the flop etc, but on the contrary - it is a measure which takes precisely this into account since after a fold because of an unfavourable flop, no more calculation is done.
Nice tool, ty! Shipped $5 to you on FTP <s>as a thank you</s> for better karma.
We completely agree on that one. And such an AIEV is using complete information and represents an mathematically undisputable calculation. It doesn't claim to "solve" the problem where you commit 80% of your stack preflop when you're ahead, then the last 20% at flop when you're behind.
What it does, however, is mathematically correctly determines your AIEV for those last 20%, in that case.
I hear you... This is exactly my point: being able to determine your true equity in such a case needs a very good definition of what being commited means.
In the very unlikely case that one could only approach such a definition, then a tool like SECT could be made to work. But having a definition of being commited is shabby at best.
Say you 3-bet overbet to 30% of your stack a donkey pf with JJ... You're commited right? Then donkey calls, flop comes monochrome AKQ of a suite you don't have and donkey donks all-in. Do you give the 70% of your stack?
How can an algorithm decide if a player is commited or not?
No it is not. That's what the author (silent on the subject) and the users of SECT don't understand. It's plain and simply broken.You say that SECT fails to take into consideration the fact players do not continue after the flop etc, but on the contrary - it is a measure which takes precisely this into account since after a fold because of an unfavourable flop, no more calculation is done.
You say "no more calculation is done" but it is not true. You're completely screwing the other computations that are done by doing "no more calculation".
Example: you raise AA to 80% of your stack preflop, donkey calls, flop comes K83 rainbow, you go all-in for your last 20%.
Case 1: donkey calls with 87, SECT shows you as running mostly as expected.
Case 2: donkey calls with 33, being a huge favorite, SECT shows you as running bad.
But what about all the cases where villain folds !?
That is what SECT fails to capture. You cannot consider that you got unlucky when the donkey hit 33 yet "not compute anything" all the times where donkey folded.
The cases where donkey folded completely screw the other computations.
Lets simplify our scenario even more:
- you have AA, you raise to 80% of your stack, donkey calls, flop comes K83 rainbow.
- you then go all-in, no matter the flop, because you're committed.
- out of 100 times, 99 times donkey folds.
- 1 time donkeys calls with 33.
What shall SECT bogusly do? It shall do no computations for the 99 times where donkey folded, "no more calculation".
What shall SECT do the one time where donkey calls with 33 ? Shows that donkey sucked out and that you got unlucky.
So altough you ran obviously uber-good by having donkey folding 99 times out of 100 (donkey and his 33 his expected to hit a set of 3 much more often than once in 100 times), SECT only focus on that one time where donkey hit his set and tells that you're running below EV.
It's precisely because SECT does nothing to your adjusted-graph on these case where the opponent folded that it is completely bogus.
This is a well-know gambler fallacy.
I suggest continuing this discussion in a "Poker theory" forum but honestly SECT is based on a broken premise and should not be used.
I'm sceptical and tend to agree with tristan here.
my four graphs (admittedly only 50k hands total) are _all_ below EV, and sometimes significantly so. I mean it would be nice if that were true, but honestly I don't think I've run that bad.
Could someone post a graph where he actually runs above EV according to this tool?
I personally thing the reason we are all running below ev is because calcs are done NOT including rake. Thus, if the pot is say 200, and we have a 40% chance of winning, then sect assigns us 100 of the pot, where in reality it might be 94, or 97.
THe amount i am running below over a large sample is approximately what i am paying in rake (except for my retarded doom switch last 30k hands)
As for those arguing whether sect or hem is better, i think sect is massively better.
The argument that showdown vs non showdown is irrelevant if you are looking at a graph with BOTH in them, rather one in isolation.
When tristan states that sect fails to consider the cases when villain folds, he doesnt realise that when villain folds his hand, the result of this will show up in the non showdown winnings, which, on his example will be massively skewed in our favour
As for needing to be all in prior to the river to calculate things accurately, what crud. As long as we know the cards, i think it is massively beneficial to calculate things street by street.
Example, get 99bb in with AAvs 22 pf, villain hits his 2 on the river, and we then get ai, hem will give us ZERO % equity.
In poker, all we can try to do is get our money (over four streets) in good. Hem does not show this at all, sect does it very well.
I know much more on that subject than you think. I created an account on this forum only to point out the fallacy behind SECT in this newsgroup.
I realize exactly everything I wrote, it's you that don't realize something, and I'll explain it in great details here now.
It is not irrelevant and it wouldn't be 'skewed'. Non-showdown graph is correct and mathematically undisputable. HM has a correct non-showdown graph and a correct all-in EV graph.
So your post starts with a false premise: you say that I "fail to realize the non-showdown line will be skewed in our favor".
But a non-showdown line cannot be skewed. That's was kinda the point of my post.
A non-showdown line is a non-showdown line. The definition of a non-showdown line is well-known, unarguable, and represents exactly how much money you made in non-showdown pots.
Give me as many hands as you want, I'll graph you the non-showdown graph and it ain't going to be 'skewed'. It is going to represent exactly what you made or lost in non-showdowns.
So let's recap:
showdown + non-showdown = your actual result.
AIEV = what your showdown results should have been (by adjusting pre-river all-ins showdown only) + non-showdown.
SECT = what your showdown results should have been by adjusting all deals with known showdown cards + non-showdown.
Realize that all these non-showdown are identical in all these cases and mathematically indisputable. There's no arguing here: I'm stating a fact.
I don't care if villain folded 999999 out of one million. The non-showdown line is still correct. It represents what really happened.
I may have my non-showdown line nearly vertical, great. It's what happened. In all cases: actual results, AIEV results, SECT results... The non-showdown line is the non-showdown line. No skew here. Just facts.
Now the SECT-adjusted showdown is bogus and comes from weed-smoking-faerie-delusional-land and I'll re-explain why. It is skewed for the very reason I explained that you refuse to acknowledge. It is a well-known poker players fallacy.
Once again: you cannot hope to adjust results at showdown on a street-by-street basis for deals that go to showdown because you are skewing these showdowns towards deals where villain hit good cards (which is why villain is still there and appears to be so lucky). The non-showdown aren't and cannot be skewed: they are undisputable. They represent what really happened.
Let's take my example again, with a more detailed explanation of what HM and sect do:
- you have AA, you raise to 80% of your stack, donkey calls, flop comes K83 rainbow.
- you then go all-in, no matter the flop, because you're committed.
- out of 100 times, 99 times donkey folds.
- 1 time donkeys calls with 33.
Real winnings graph: sum of 1 showdown (say that villain won on a K837J board) + 99 non-showdown.
HM AIEV graph: sum of 1 showdown graph where we consider we're behind with AA vs 33 on a K83 flop, which is mathematically correct and which everyone using AIEV knows (even if it doesn't capture what [b]you[/] would like doesn't exactly make an AIEV graph unnecessary).
SECT graph: sum of 1 showdown where we consider we were way ahead with our AA preflop vs 33 but got suckered out on the flop + 99 non-showdown.
Do you really still fail to realize why SECT is utterly and completely bogus and delusional?
In addition to that:
1. it is a well-known gambler fallacy
2. what is the probability that all people in this thread are well below EV? (and it's not a rake thinggy, it's a heluva number of buy-ins below EV for some)?
Seriously? Can't my posts + the fact that several posters have serious doubt about those magical graph where "everybody is running bad" make you change your mind? (I hope it can, because mathematical facts and gamblers fallacies won't change to accomodate your view ; - )
crud?As for needing to be all in prior to the river to calculate things accurately, what crud. As long as we know the cards, i think it is massively beneficial to calculate things street by street.
You do not know things street-by-street. You know things street-by-street for heavily skewed deals where villain didn't fold.
And why didn't villain fold? Because very often he hit or hit a draw.
Non-showdown is irrelevant: non-showdown is the same in HM and SECT. Non-showdown is correct and we all know how to interpret it.
Yes, as will all correctly programmed (that is: not PT ones) AIEV algorithms. It never claimed to solve all the world's troubles. AIEV does what it does and never claimed to be useful in the case you're showing here. Once again, the fact that AIEV in your example isn't useful doesn't make AIEV 'wrong'. AIEV captures all-in luck on pre-river all-ins and does it correctly and in a mathematical undisputable way (it's the only way in Hold'em where you have perfect information).Example, get 99bb in with AAvs 22 pf, villain hits his 2 on the river, and we then get ai, hem will give us ZERO % equity.
HM shows it to some extend, especially in NL where quite some of the "200 bb pots" deals tend to involve pre-river all-ins (or all these all-ins vs shortstackers). And HM isn't the only one to show this.In poker, all we can try to do is get our money (over four streets) in good. Hem does not show this at all, sect does it very well.
SECT doesn't do this very well at all.
SECT is based on a logical fallacy and is completely skewing the results.
I'm done, I've written lenghty posts and have had several people agreeing with my detailed explanation.
I've debunked the very premise of your post: that I "failed to realize that non-showdown would be skewed in our favor". But "non-showdown skew" is a contradiction in terms.
I suggest continuing this post in a "Computer Theory" forum and you'll see that people there shall agree with my view.
I suggest reading the articles at pokersleuth.com :
* The Gambler's Fallacy
* The Prosecutor's Fallacy
* The Defense Attorney's Fallacy
* The Normality Fallacy
Note that I'm not in any way arguing here: I'm stating mathematically indisputable facts. These kind of gambler fallacies have a name for a reason: many people do fail to recognize them.
I happen to be very familiar with these fallacies and very familiar with AIEV algorithms.
What's the probability I'm correct on this subject?
I too registered to respond here and that is to tell you you are wrong at least with respect to one thing.
Non-showdown winnings is skewed. I think you simply define skew differently than others (including me).
The showdown line gives 100% of the equity of the pot to the one not folding. When the hand is being played this is blatantly incorrect since at various streets one of the villains folding has put money in with a pot equity not equal to zero!
To unskew the data we would need to calculate the equity of each villain for each street except the street at which that specific villain folds.
So, say I raise pf and villain has 30% equity and calls. We are heads up to the flop and the pot is $10, then villain is entitled to $3! Then he donk-bets, I raise and he folds. All the winnings on the flop are 100% mine, since villain folded.
This addition is necessary to reward chasers with the right amount of equity. If villain chases a FD to the river, and check/folds the river, he is entitled to some of the equity because if he had hit his flush (of which he had a certain chance of making when he put his money in the pot) he would have won the pot.
Sadly we can never calculate this witout the explicit help of poker sites since we would need the hole cards to be revealed.
With this argumentation? 0% as I debunked your premise
[sorry for that last one but I really hate Argumentae ad auctoritatem ...... (is ae the plural? lol)]
Last edited by wachtwoord; 11-11-2009 at 02:49 PM.
hey mate does this street-by-street ev calculator work for omaha ??