PDA

View Full Version : my $ev adjusted is not correct and some hands not imported



oscari87
08-14-2010, 03:39 AM
imaXenes.com - imaxen_hm1zs87rp.jpg (http://www.imaxenes.com/imagen/imaxen_hm1zs87rp.jpg.html)
imaXenes.com - imaxen_report1sr2849.jpg (http://www.imaxenes.com/imagen/imaxen_report1sr2849.jpg.html)
imaXenes.com - grafica_hm1iu563l.jpg (http://www.imaxenes.com/imagen/grafica_hm1iu563l.jpg.html)

netsrak
08-14-2010, 08:01 AM
Please update to 1.11.04 http://forums.holdemmanager.com/releases/30576-1-11-04-official-release.html

and if you still have problems please explain your screenshots.

oscari87
08-15-2010, 04:32 AM
the allin ev is incorrect, and the somehand not imported. this

netsrak
08-15-2010, 06:50 AM
Please zip and mail the original handhistory files (you find them in the HM archive folder or in the handhistory folder of your poker client) together with a link to this thread and an explanation of the problem to support@holdemmanager.net. We will then try to reproduce the problem.

Please add the screenshots too and explain what you think is wrong and why.

Wolfman77b
08-15-2010, 12:21 PM
Whenever you are All in with more than one none all-in opponent your All-in EV is not calculated on the moment you were all in, but when no more betting could occur. Say you go all-in on the flop and are called by 2 taller stacks, on the turn, one of those stacks goes all-in. Your all-in EV is now calculated on you chances of winning from the turn and not from the flop when you actually went all in. This is wrong IMO.

Patvs
08-17-2010, 03:44 AM
It's not wrong:

The problem with shorty player A being allin preflop--> player B & C continue the betting--> player C folds. Player B does NOT get preflop allin EV (but flop allin EV)-->
is caused because we often do not get to see player C's hand.
Maybe he had the best hand preflop. Maybe he still folded the best hand on the flop. Sice you don't know this, it's unfair to give you preflop allin EV.

This is being compensated by ALSO not giving you preflop allin EV when we DO know player C's hand. To be consistent we NEVER give preflop allin EV against the shortstack, if the betting continues.


For a long time I thought it was unfair (and I wanted a "EV per street" calculation) until I read: http://forums.holdemmanager.com/3rd-party-programs-compatible-holdem-manager/16665-enter-sect-7.html


Summary:

The EV "problem" what some people don't understand:
A: If a player has 0 outs, or
B: the allin situation takes place on the river there is NO EV DIFFERENCE.
C: If a shortstack goes allin preflop, and is called by two bigstacks. And the two bigstacks continue to bet on the flop, turn or river, this situation is treated as situation B. (EV = 0)
Fozzy: "You can't calculate all-in equity if you don't know the hands you are up against."
D: If you commit 99% of your stack with the best hand, but your last 1% goes allin with the worst hand, the $EV Difference will be calculated by your entire stack.

Why "EV by street" (which people who often see situation D want) is a bad thing:

Example:
- 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, 88 times donkey folds.
- 12 times donkeys calls with a set (33/88/KK).
What shall EV by street wrongly do? It shall do no computations for the 88 times where donkey folded--> "no more calculation".
What shall EV by street do the 12 times where donkey calls with a set? "Show that donkey sucked out and that you got unlucky".

So although you ran obviously really good by having donkey folding 88 times out of 100. EV by street focuses on the 12 times where donkey hit his set and tells that you're running below EV.
This is a well-known gambler fallacy. And this is why "EV by street" is biased.

Note: Tristanblue writes "it's precisely because EV by street does nothing to your adjusted-graph on these cases where the opponent folded that it is wrong".

But what if your opponent never folds? Suppose there are two players A and B.
Player A has AA, B has KK. (both have $100 stacks). They commit half their stack preflop and the flop comes AK6. Player B (KK has 1 "out") to win the hand.
If I would play this hand I would always make sure I'm allin on the turn.
However Player X always commits the rest of his stack on the flop and turn *except for one dollar*. And he commits on the river.
Of course, 4% of the time, the rivercard is the case King. Player X's EV Diff is always 0. (because he goes allin on the river)
My EV Diff (I go allin on the turn) is -$4 (96 out of 100 times) and +$96 (4 out of 100 times)
So our EV graph actually looks exactly the same after 100 of these hands.
(-4 * 96 + 96 * 4 = also equals 0!) So the EV outcome (in the long-term) is the same no matter how you play the hand. And no matter which type of EV calculation you use.

Wolfman77b
08-17-2010, 08:37 AM
Well, took a look at your thread. A very long discussion and I couldn't make sence of it so I'll restate my problem with an example of the kind of hand that made me REALIZE that the all-in EV calculator can be improved.

Preflop 1 or 2 raises and a total of 3 players saw the flop. ~25 bb in the pot.
Player 1 KK ~60bb left in stack
Player 2 KJ ~90bb left in stack
Player 3 AA >90bb left in stack
flop KJx
betting ends in player 1 going all in and both opponents calling. ~210bb in pot
(Now it would be possible to calculate the All in EV for player one if one knew the involved players cards which one does not ... YET!!! ~80%-own stake)
turn A
betting ends in player 2 being all in and player 3 still in the hand.
All cards are revealed.
Now HEM calculates the all in EV of -own stake for both player 1 and 2. This makes a huge difference in the EV for player 1 and no difference for player 2
river makes no difference, no flush draws were present.

In this case the "true" all in EV could be calculated for player 1 and HEM didn't.

If player 2 had folded on the turn, I agree that the figure calculated would be biased, but calculating a 4% winning chance for player 1's all in is far more off than calculating from the flop and letting the program believe there is still one last king in the deck. By your argument we can never calculate a good approximation of the all in EV because we don't know which cards have already been mucked.

Patvs
08-17-2010, 12:54 PM
In this case the "true" all in EV could be calculated for player 1 and HEM didn't.


If HM calculates it when the holecards for all three players are known... but doesn't (because it's not able to) when one player folds on the turn... it is also biased.

Therefore HM should either ALWAYS (not possible, since you don't always get to see everybody's holecards), or NEVER calculate the "true" all in EV in these type of situations.
So it opts to never do it. As I wrote in my earlier post. This SEEMS unfair. And the EV for this one hand seems "way off", but the longterm result in the EV graph is exactly the same, no matter which method you use.

Wolfman77b
08-20-2010, 01:26 AM
If HM calculates it when the holecards for all three players are known... but doesn't (because it's not able to) when one player folds on the turn... it is also biased.

Of course it is, and it's biased until it knows everyones holecards not only the players involved in the hand, but this shouldn't keep the program from trying to get as close to the "true" value as possible.


Therefore HM should either ALWAYS (not possible, since you don't always get to see everybody's holecards), or NEVER calculate the "true" all in EV in these type of situations.
So you argue that we might as well put the EV diff=0?


And the EV for this one hand seems "way off",
IS "way off". If you wish to argue it isn't I'll enjoy reading that.


but the longterm result in the EV graph is exactly the same, no matter which method you use.
So would putting EVdiff=0 for all hands be.

What I've been trying to tell you is that eventhough your method is accurate, which can be seen in the long term it, lacks precision which is of more importance in the short term. I claim my way would improve precision. I have not checked the math on it so I can't be certain but by the look of your reply neither have you. If there are economical, software logistical or other reasons you won't try to improve(not necessarily with the changes I've suggested) on this part of the program, well why didn't you say so?

Patvs
08-20-2010, 03:10 AM
So you argue that we might as well put the EV diff=0?


For this situation, YES!

What you suggest:
-short term precision by changing the EV when we DO get to see all players holecards--> we can do this
-not changing anything when you DON'T see all players holecards?
How would you assign preflop allin EV, if the third player folds on a later street?
---> A DON'T assign EV is possible
---> B come up with a CREATIVE formula is possible

If you pick A, the longterm EV results will make absolute NO SENSE.
If you pick B, the longterm EV results won't be as accurate as they are now

So EV diff = 0 (ignoring what happens preflop altogether) is most fair.

Wolfman77b
08-20-2010, 04:55 AM
For this situation, YES!
So for this situation when we don't know all holecards at the table we put EV diff=0 and only when we have an all in family pot will we even bother to calculate EVs. Kind of a useless EV calculator if you ask me. But don't bother answering this part.




What you suggest:
-short term precision by changing the EV when we DO get to see all players holecards--> we can do this
-not changing anything when you DON'T see all players holecards?
How would you assign preflop allin EV, if the third player folds on a later street?
---> A DON'T assign EV is possible
---> B come up with a CREATIVE formula is possible

If you pick A, the longterm EV results will make absolute NO SENSE.
If you pick B, the longterm EV results won't be as accurate as they are now

So EV diff = 0 (ignoring what happens preflop altogether) is most fair.

P1 20 bb
p2 50 bb
p3 50 bb
Hole cards Identical

Scenario1
p1 AI
p2 C
p3 AI
p2 Fold
flop
turn
river

Scenario 2
p1 AI
p2 C
p3 C
flop
p2 Ch
p3 AI
p2 Fold
turn
river

Scenario 1 is pretty easy calculating EV before flop and are willing to accept that as the EV when p1 went All in eventhough one could argue that there are inaccuracies in this as well. In Scenario 2 things get more complicated and I maintain that the EV from Scenario 1 is closer to the "true" value eventhough the money from p2 that went into the pot increases EV without the threat of another winning hand decreasing it. This might be the point you've been trying to make.
However it would still be an improvement to just do the EV calculations from the all-In round when possible (times like the original scenario) and let the program keep going like it does now for the rest.

Patvs
08-20-2010, 06:34 AM
HoldemManager can do two things:
-1 do the EV calculations from the all-In round when possible (this actually brings a technical difficulty, because it has to re-calculate the preflop EV on a later street, when we get to see the other players holecards. So for every hand HoldemManager has to check for EV at the end of the hand.
-2 Ignore EV for these type of situations--> and surprisingly if you ignore all these hand, the longterm result of EV Diff = 0 is accurate.

(see my other long post)


(-4 * 96 + 96 * 4 = also equals 0!) So the EV outcome (in the long-term) is the same no matter how you play the hand. And no matter which type of EV calculation you use.


We picked #2.
You prefer #1. Why we didn't pick #1:

Situation:
p1 20 bb A9
p2 50 bb AK
p3 50 bb AQ<-- this is you

Scenario 2
p1 AI
p2 C
p3 C
flop: Qxx
p2 Ch
p3 AI
p2 Fold
turn
river

Preflop (effective stack size 20 BB) basically a three way allin: AK vs AQ vs A9
But we never get to see the p2 hand, the AK.
So how do we calculate EV for the AQ vs A9.

The current situation shows EV Diff = 0 (which basically means we completely IGNORE EV for these type of situations) which seems "unfair / way off for this one hand".

But is it that unfair? Why should HoldemManager assign you 70% equity of the pot (AQ vs A9) when you didn't have the best hand to begin with.
We can't treat it as Scenario 1: just do a preflop allin EV for AQ vs A9, pretending p3 who had AK folded preflop, because he didn't.



I maintain that the EV from Scenario 1 is closer to the "true" value

So if you are player 3 (with AK) you also have the right of preflop allin EV, even though you folded postflop. So the next step is HoldemManager has to assign EV for all the times you folded postflop when all the players holecards were known. (which changes the whole Allin EV system to a---> EV by street system)

Though if you add a fourth player who ALSO folds postflop, you suddenly can't calculate the preflop EV anymore for player 3.

Conclusion: assigning the EV when ALL the players holecards are known, and then either NOT assigning EV when information is missing or ignoring the missing information does NOT bring you closer to the true value. And will completely screw up the longterm EV line.

Patvs
08-20-2010, 07:19 AM
Well, took a look at your thread. A very long discussion and I couldn't make sence of it


reread: http://forums.holdemmanager.com/169524-post6.html