SNG Luck Factor question

[Rvg72]

As some of you know we are about to release this functionality and the last couple of betas are calculating $ expectation for all SNG all-in situations (although currently not saving it do DB, just to a log file for testing) but I do have some questions on how you think the OVERALL tourney luck should be calculated

Scenario 1: Player plays a few all-in situations and overall is a little bit lucky but then busts out in 4th place so $0 winnings. Should his luck adjusted winnings be set at $0 to avoid a situation where it looks like he lost more than the buyin

Scenario 2: Player is very unlucky in all-ins but still wins the tourney. Say first place is $100 and if you total up all the ICM differences in all-in hands he was unlucky by $12. Do you really want the adjusted winnings to be $112 or should this be capped to the win amount?

The issue with adjusting the values is that the $EV adjusted winnings for all players won't add up properly but I'm thinking it needs to be done this way.

Normally the values will fall in normal ranges although I'm sure this will come up pretty frequently. Any feedback on how this should be handled? I'm specifically talking about $EV adjusted winnings for entire tourneys, so in the winnings graph for example.

Roy

[vlsup]

I think the turney Luck Factor need to appear in two reincarnations:
- in chips (i.e. "pure luck" in allins)
- and in win/lost money (i.e. "final effect" of allins)

[Rvg72]

I think the turney Luck Factor need to appear in two reincarnations:
- in chips (i.e. "pure luck" in allins)
- and in win/lost money (i.e. "final effect" of allins)

Yes, both are there but the question is what if the final effect of allins gives you an adjusted $ amount that is not possible?

[vlsup]

make a build-in template of letter to poker-room support with request of more money due to their bad random generator

[GrumpyDadPoker]

I suggest to cap it in both ends, I won't be able to understand a SNG or a MTT where I lost more than the buy-in or won more than the 1st place payout.

my 2 cents.

[dave_w11]

I think that it should not be capped as this will cause long term skewing of results for 'luck' one way or another depending on which causes most capping. If you do this please at least add an option for it to be done without capping.

A long term tendency to report players more 'unlucky' than they are will be hard to detect without a lot of data so I think it is important not to bring about potential for such bias.

[Rvg72]

Yeah, I think I'll need to do uncapped by default and provide an option to use capped otherwise like you said it could create longer term issues.

[Iggy23]

2 questions...

1) Does the luck factor include situations where you are against another player that is all in or just situations where you are the one who is all in?

2) What about a situation where you are down to 4 players, you fold but another player goes all in? Wouldn't the luck factor of that hand have an effect on your winnings? Will that be included in your winnings graph?

[chilin_dude]

Uncapped definitely - That is how jukbaks works and is the best way imo

[Rvg72]

2 questions...

1) Does the luck factor include situations where you are against another player that is all in or just situations where you are the one who is all in?

2) What about a situation where you are down to 4 players, you fold but another player goes all in? Wouldn't the luck factor of that hand have an effect on your winnings? Will that be included in your winnings graph?

1) It includes any situation where there is no bias and you have no actions left but there are cards to come

2) Yes - generally when you are not involved in an all-in your equity change is very close to $0 but in spots like this it can be very large despite you not being in the hand. These will be included although this situation might not be in the beta 8

Roy