if PT were to calculate a "luck factor" much like aggressive factor...

[MatrixMunki]

I think it would be interesting if poker tracker somehow had a "luck factor" stat which somehow told you if in the number of hands you played you were too lucky or not lucky enough. I know this is a very complicated question, but what do you think the formulas or most important stats would be in this equation. -Mentor

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

the more you play, the more this number will even out. Seems pointles.

[Evan]

This would be borderline impossible IMO. To calculate this the software would somehow have to evaluate your play, compare the distribution of cards to a normal distribution AND (I think this one would actually be really tough) quantify it somehow.

[sfer]

You can't calculate luck per hand since the results have two states--you win/you lose. It's like verifying the accuracy of the weather forecast based on a single day.

[axioma]

well if it could somehow evaluate your playing skill, then if it determins that your skill level is below the average of your opponents and yet you still show a profit, then it can conclude that you have been lucky, and vice versa.

[sfer]

That's not per hand.

[dogmeat]

A way this could be done (and you can do it with your replay feature, although it would take forever) would be to take the expected % win against all calling hands, then multiply this % by the final pot. If you call and have a 28% chance against the remaining hands and the pot is $100, then your expected return (and it may be a loss for you, although this number will always be positive) with this particular hand, in this instance, is $28.

If every hand was done this way, you could see after x-number of hands, what your expected return should be - and what it actually was. You might be an overall winner, or loser, but eventually the number would begin be very close to your overall win/loss. After enough hands, this number would be almost the same compared to win for the very good player,and very high compared to the actual win for a weak player.

When your actual win was higher than the expected value produced, you would be on a "lucky" streak, but also might be much better than the competition. When it was lower, you would be on an "unlucky" streak, or might be weaker than your competition.


Think that is reasonable? What did I forget?

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[ResidentParanoid]

I think doing it based only on win % is not the best way to go. I think you could define it based on a combination of four things:

1. Dealt hands (you need good hands to win)
2. Flopped draw/Flopped made hand (nice flop, you can continue)
3. Made draws (made flushes and straights are winners most of the time)
4. Strong hands that lose

1., 2., and 3.:
When your %age of dealt hands, nice flops, made draws are all higher than the expected number, you are running good. When they are all below, you are running bad. You could define a "factor" based on these deviations.

I base this on one of the things I look at when I'm having a bad session, especially when the table is loose enough that I'm getting odds to play hands that may only flop draws for straights and flushes. If I never get AA or KK, etc, that's bad luck. Also, if I am rarely drawing to a big hand, that's bad luck. Also, if when I am drawing I never catch, then that is bad luck. In an unlucky session, all of those things usually happen. In the worst unlucky sessions, these things are happening, and my opponents are catching their draws.

1 through 3, of course, only considers luck as it pertains to YOUR HAND. 4. considers your opponents luck:

4.
Bad luck due to your opponents luck is when you have a hand that usually wins (say, top two or better) and still lose. If the percentage of "big hands" that actually won is lower than the expected number, then that is an "unlucky" session.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Just play several million hands, and you will know the precise luck factor.