Win Conf.(spreadsheet Change)

[AleoMagus]

Well, this is something that I've been aware of for a while now, and it's not really a mistake so much as a change that I've finally decided should be implemented in the spreadsheet. Some of you may remember that KJo discussed this a while back in another spreadsheet thread.

The 'winning' confidence has always just been the confidence that you make between $0 and two times your usual ROI. This was a conservative estimate and worked pretty well for players getting over a 25% ROI.

For players hovering around the break even point however, the confidence values were very small. Players who were losing were getting negative 'winning' confidence values. This all makes little sense. If you are a winning player at all, your winning confidence should be at least 50%. even losing players should have a positive value for winning confidence.

To fix this, the winning confidence should need to express the confidence that you are earning ANY positive value, not just between 0 and 2x your usual expectation.

SO....

another cell should be added to the confidence calculator anywhere you like. Call this 'True Winning Confidence' or whatever you want

this should equal (c20+(1-c20)/2).

This is a quick fix and maybe me or someone else will incorporate more fully this into the spreadsheet and get jurollo to put the new version on the site so it is downloaded correct from now on.

Regards
Brad S

Note: The equation that I have given was what I and KJo derived independently, but I don't claim to be an expert. Math and stats whizzes may want to check it and I'd appreciate it if they responded if it is wrong.

[rachelwxm]

Thanks for the hard working! I got pokertracker and find it not worth as much as your spreadsheet! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chill888]

just asking...

do you assume results have a normal distribution? If yes, what's your view of the impact of this assumption.

Not criticizing...just asking.

[GingerD]

Link to this spreadsheet?

[The Yugoslavian]

*nods in agreement*

You rule Brad! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[AleoMagus]

Yes, I assume results have a normal distribution. My view of the impact of this assumption...

I've thought a lot about that and have really come to no conclusions. It is incorrect in the strictest sense because SNG results do NOT have a normal distribution. I think that if nothing else, these assumptions give a good approximation.

Some (Eastbay, I think, among others) have stated that in fact they believe SNG results would have greater fluctuation than the normal distribution assumes. I actually lean the other way and think it gives an exaggerated degree of fluctuation (or fairly accurate degree) in predictions about future results.

At one point I was actually trying to calculate the exact stats based upon finish probabilities and possible combinations of finishes for a given sample size. I abandoned this pretty quickly because once you start increasing you sample, the combinatorics get crazy (hugely calculation intensive) and I knew of no more efficient way to do this.

Besides, it's just an interesting little stat and shouldn't be taken too seriously anyways, lest one succumb to Irieguy's SNG results sabotaging statistical obsession (which I know all about).

Regards
Brad S

[burningyen]

I'd like to see this spreadsheet, too. I made up my own with a running tally of my profits, average place and ROI (after 10 entries I'm at 53%, har har), but I'm not familiar with this winning confidence concept. What other stats do people track? If all the answers are in the FAQ, I apologize.

[burningyen]

You can ignore my post, I've found the spreadsheet. Very nice!

[GingerD]

Does NOBODY want to link me?

lol

[housenuts]

is there any way to use this spreadsheet without Microsoft Excel?

[KJ o]

Great, thanks. Of course, I already added that. I also added a reference to that cell on the data entry page, together with ITM and ROI figures. These are the three key meassures for me that I want to look at at all times.