All in Equity - not being calculated properly in some MW spots
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    94

    Default All in Equity - not being calculated properly in some MW spots

    Had a hand today ... I raised the CO, BTN calls, SB shoves for about 5.5bbs (lol). I call and BTN calls. I bet the flop, BTN raises and I jam. We get all in and I have about 64% equity against BTN and 98.9% against SB. Ended up losing the hand to BTN and my all in equity difference is showing as $0.00

  2. #2
    *** HM3! *** fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    HM Support
    Posts
    32,803

    Default

    HM3 uses the same equity code as PT4 now which is more accurate and less biased than the code we used for equity in HM2.

    In a hand where a player is all-in but other players are not, net adjusted results are not calculated. When one player is all-in preflop and other players are not, then they usually have the option to act postflop and this means that sometimes one of them will fold. Having the option to fold* after another street is dealt means that in the long run there will be more strong hands which get to showdown and less weak hands. If we were to calculate net adjusted results in hands like this it would introduce a systematic bias (because there will be more known strong hands) so we exclude all hands like this from net adjusted calculations. You can read more about this here.

    *Note: Attempting to calculate adjusted results when unknown but folded cards already called the all-in also introduce a bias into the results so HM3 does not make these calculations in any situation where a player calls the all-in and later folds (even if it's on the same street).

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fozzy71 View Post
    HM3 uses the same equity code as PT4 now which is more accurate and less biased than the code we used for equity in HM2.

    In a hand where a player is all-in but other players are not, net adjusted results are not calculated. When one player is all-in preflop and other players are not, then they usually have the option to act postflop and this means that sometimes one of them will fold. Having the option to fold* after another street is dealt means that in the long run there will be more strong hands which get to showdown and less weak hands. If we were to calculate net adjusted results in hands like this it would introduce a systematic bias (because there will be more known strong hands) so we exclude all hands like this from net adjusted calculations. You can read more about this here.

    *Note: Attempting to calculate adjusted results when unknown but folded cards already called the all-in also introduce a bias into the results so HM3 does not make these calculations in any situation where a player calls the all-in and later folds (even if it's on the same street).
    I understand what you're saying that stronger hands will be made on average (against the player all in short) since the other players had the opportunity to see their equity on the flop.


    Currently if I was HU with someone and shove with 90% equity, and they call with 10%, there is an all in adjusted difference calculated by HM3. I don't see why this should be different just because someone went all in for 5.5bb? IMO the best way would be to exclude the 5.5bb side pot and do the rest of the calculation as normal for the 2 remaining players.

    Ex: if the pot is $10.00 and $1.00 is between 3 players - and the big stacks ($9 eff) are all in 60/40 then calculate $4.50 ev for one side and $3.60 for the other, and leave the side pot as you described above.

    Basically in my situation the 5.5bb was almost irrelevant to the hand since it was a fish shoving his last few bb. The rest of the pot was played as normal but now my all in EV is off.

    Sorry if my post seems harsh (not meant to be, just trying to play and post at the same time)

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    94

    Default

    deleted (accidentally posted 2x)
    Last edited by ten25; 09-22-2020 at 08:51 PM. Reason: duplicate post

  5. #5
    *** HM3! *** fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    HM Support
    Posts
    32,803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ten25 View Post
    I understand what you're saying that stronger hands will be made on average (against the player all in short) since the other players had the opportunity to see their equity on the flop.


    Currently if I was HU with someone and shove with 90% equity, and they call with 10%, there is an all in adjusted difference calculated by HM3. I don't see why this should be different just because someone went all in for 5.5bb? IMO the best way would be to exclude the 5.5bb side pot and do the rest of the calculation as normal for the 2 remaining players.

    Ex: if the pot is $10.00 and $1.00 is between 3 players - and the big stacks ($9 eff) are all in 60/40 then calculate $4.50 ev for one side and $3.60 for the other, and leave the side pot as you described above.

    Basically in my situation the 5.5bb was almost irrelevant to the hand since it was a fish shoving his last few bb. The rest of the pot was played as normal but now my all in EV is off.

    Sorry if my post seems harsh (not meant to be, just trying to play and post at the same time)
    I understand what you are saying but we have no plans to calculate EV for side pots, for the reasons explained in that blog post I linked to - https://www.pokertracker.com/blog/20...-all-in-equity

    The point is not that we couldn't calculate the equities of part of the pot when some hole cards are known, but that doing so would introduce a bias in the results. If both bigger stacks go to showdown then they are both likely stronger hands. If we calculate equities for those but ignore hands where one of them folds (so they likely have weaker hands) that would bias the results.
    Last edited by fozzy71; 09-23-2020 at 09:28 AM.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Honestly, I pointed out to you months ago that your logic is flawed on this point. At the time you said you'd add the option to calculate all-in EV in line with HM2 to the development workstream. I presume now that you've stopped that work?

    Every action affects ranges. A bias can only exist is there is something against which neutral can be known. The purpose of all-in EV is to look at the long run of 'this' situation. Not a situation where the short stack is not all-in and there's post-flop play but this situation, right here with a short stack all-in and other players having post-flop funsies. You calculate the all-in EV of this situation at the point the information is known for the parts that are variable. No bias occurs. Your position on this and that badly thought through article is a complete misunderstanding of the situation and use of all-in EV.

  7. #7
    *** HM3! *** fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    HM Support
    Posts
    32,803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knowlestoo View Post
    Honestly, I pointed out to you months ago that your logic is flawed on this point. At the time you said you'd add the option to calculate all-in EV in line with HM2 to the development workstream. I presume now that you've stopped that work?

    Every action affects ranges. A bias can only exist is there is something against which neutral can be known. The purpose of all-in EV is to look at the long run of 'this' situation. Not a situation where the short stack is not all-in and there's post-flop play but this situation, right here with a short stack all-in and other players having post-flop funsies. You calculate the all-in EV of this situation at the point the information is known for the parts that are variable. No bias occurs. Your position on this and that badly thought through article is a complete misunderstanding of the situation and use of all-in EV.
    We did write up a feature request for you to see if we could possibly add it in the future if we get enough requests.

    HMT-5088: Add config option to calculate All-In Adj in Multi-Way pots (i.e. HM2 $EV)


    I actually forgot we wrote this up as a feature request or I would have been adding more customers that had similar complaints about this to the request. I will move this entire thread to the feature requests forum to try and get more traction for, and weight added to, that feature request.

    If anyone else wants to add their weight/support for this feature request please send an email via the 'Contact Support' link and include "Notify Me When HMT-5088 Is Resolved" in the subject line and body of the email.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-28-2020, 09:32 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 12:38 AM
  3. wrong equity and ev diff in certain spots
    By yanpakal in forum Manager General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-08-2011, 09:09 PM
  4. Some popup stats in wrong spots
    By dan233 in forum Bug Reports
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-22-2011, 05:07 PM
  5. 888/Pacific EV not being calculated properly
    By omgwtflol in forum Manager General
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-02-2011, 12:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •