Problem with All-in Adj / All-in Equity

[Andjih]

Hi,

I think I found a bug with All-in Adj and All-in Equity stats in a specific situation.

Here is the summary of the hand played :
Seat 1: Andjih (375)
Seat 2: etRAISEdetka (149)
Seat 3: kevin13430 (976)
*** ANTE/BLINDS ***
kevin13430 posts small blind 20
Andjih posts big blind 40
Dealt to Andjih [Ah 5h]
*** PRE-FLOP ***
etRAISEdetka raises 109 to 149 and is all-in
kevin13430 calls 129
Andjih raises 226 to 375 and is all-in
kevin13430 folds
*** FLOP *** [2d Jd 2h]
*** TURN *** [2d Jd 2h][9c]
*** RIVER *** [2d Jd 2h 9c][Qc]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Andjih shows [Ah 5h] (One pair : 2)
etRAISEdetka shows [Qh Kd] (Two pairs : Queens and 2)
etRAISEdetka collected 447 from main pot
Andjih collected 226 from side pot 1
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 673 | No rake
Board: [2d Jd 2h 9c Qc]
Seat 1: Andjih (big blind) showed [Ah 5h] and won 226 with One pair : 2
Seat 2: etRAISEdetka (button) showed [Qh Kd] and won 447 with Two pairs : Queens and 2


As you can see the problem is when player 1 (button) raises all-in then player 2 (small blind) calls (and is not all-in) then player 3 (big blind) reraises all-in then player 2 (small blind) folds.

On the screen below you can see my All-in Adj is -149.
If my calculations are corrects it should be : 149*3*0,5995 - 149 = 119
I think the problem comes from the fact there is no All-in Equity stats displayed in the All-in Equity column.

all_in_equity_1.PNG

all_in_equity_2.PNG

Thank you for your help.

[fozzy71]

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).

[Andjih]

Hi Fozzy,

Thank you for the answer.

As you can see in the summary and in the screenshot player 1 (Andjih) and player 2 (etRAISEdetka) are all-in, player 3 folded preflop (kevin13430) which means neither player 1 nor player 2 nor player 3 have the option to act postflop.

[fozzy71]

Hi Fozzy,

Thank you for the answer.

As you can see in the summary and in the screenshot player 1 (Andjih) and player 2 (etRAISEdetka) are all-in, player 3 folded preflop (kevin13430) which means neither player 1 nor player 2 nor player 3 have the option to act postflop.

Did you read this part of my previous post?

...

*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).

kevin13430 calls the short-stack etRAISEdetka's all-in then folds to the re-shove from Andjih:

*** PRE-FLOP ***
etRAISEdetka raises 109 to 149 and is all-in
kevin13430 calls 129
Andjih raises 226 to 375 and is all-in
kevin13430 folds

[Andjih]

I read it but I don't understand why it is introducing a bias into the result, can you explain ?

For me as I see it, we have two player all-in and since the third player folded we have all-in equity for both players (in this case 59,95% and 40,05%) so we can calculate all-in adj pretty easily.
I don't see any difference if the third player had just folded instead of call and fold to reshove, we juste have a bigger pot.

This problem is quite annoying since it gives us false results, in this case the result is -149 ev but it should be 149*3*0,5995 - 149 = +119 ev.

[fozzy71]

The bias is explained in the blog I linked to here - https://www.pokertracker.com/blog/20...-all-in-equity

I can't explain it any better than that page does.