Next SnG tool - the Luckometer - Page 2

eastbay · #11 05-10-2005, 12:37 PM

Already did something like this awhile back. I called it "EV vs AV" (expected value vs. actual value).

I used it briefly but found soon that it was kind of a super techno pacifier that I would suck on when taking a lot of bad beats. "Oh yeah, look, I am running bad. But I already knew that."

I think it would be very difficult to try to tie these luck metrics to your ROI to try to figure out where your "true" ROI actually was as a function of recent luck. That would be pretty cool if it could be done, but I think it may be more trouble than its worth.

There's also lots of different ways you can get unlucky. Getting good preflop hands. Getting good preflop hands when they are useful (for example, picking up AA when you have 5 chips left isn't very useful). Getting good preflop hands that don't run into better preflop hands (running KK into AA). Getting good preflop hands when others get second best preflop hands (KK vs. QQ). Getting good flops. Getting good flops that aren't second best. Getting river luck when you're all-in. The list goes on and on.

eastbay

sofere · #12 05-10-2005, 01:10 PM

The most frustrating luck factor I'm running into is Mr. Hangeronner guy staying alive with his all-ins on the bubble when I'm second shorty. Why won't he die???

Of course that same situation flips to good luck when I'm big stack.

the shadow · #13 05-10-2005, 01:10 PM

1. I get no commission. I recommend what I like.

2. While you can't load your results into Poker Academy's utility, I found the utility to be essentially worthless. Maybe that's relevant to whether you might find a similar utility to be worth it.

3. The statistic of how lucky you were in the ST in your all-in confrontations is irrelevant. The meaningful question is how lucky you should have been -- that is, were the odds favorable when the money went into the pot? That you can do with Poker Stove or Two Dimes.

The Shadow (who, in the interests of full disclosure, reveals that he gets a 10% commission on the sale of all Poker Stove and Two Dimes programs [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

KJ o · #14 05-10-2005, 01:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Already did something like this awhile back. I called it "EV vs AV" (expected value vs. actual value).

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't surprise me. You da man! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Any chance of sharing? Or including it in the pushometer?

[ QUOTE ]
I used it briefly but found soon that it was kind of a super techno pacifier that I would suck on when taking a lot of bad beats. "Oh yeah, look, I am running bad. But I already knew that."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, is your gut feeling always aligned with the truth? Since you are a much better player, that may be the case, but I have learnt *not* to trust my gut feeling.

Your pushometer has taught me dozens of cases where I used to do the wrong thing, but now do the Right Thing(TM). If I hadn't had a tool for that, I wouldn't have been able to learn, or rather I would attribute everything to luck.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be very difficult to try to tie these luck metrics to your ROI to try to figure out where your "true" ROI actually was as a function of recent luck. That would be pretty cool if it could be done, but I think it may be more trouble than its worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed that it is difficult. We don't know if it's worth it until we tried, however, do we?

[ QUOTE ]
There's also lots of different ways you can get unlucky. Getting good preflop hands. Getting good preflop hands when they are useful (for example, picking up AA when you have 5 chips left isn't very useful). Getting good preflop hands that don't run into better preflop hands (running KK into AA). Getting good preflop hands when others get second best preflop hands (KK vs. QQ). Getting good flops. Getting good flops that aren't second best. Getting river luck when you're all-in. The list goes on and on.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But removing one unknown at a time seems easonable and wothwhile anyway.

eastbay · #15 05-10-2005, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]

3. The statistic of how lucky you were in the ST in your all-in confrontations is irrelevant. The meaningful question is how lucky you should have been -- that is, were the odds favorable when the money went into the pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not always irrelevant. It depends on what kinds of questions you're asking.

It would be very useful to determine if a current downswing is the result of bad luck or bad play. If you could quantify luck and compare it against a baseline, this would go a long way towards answering that question.

eastbay

KJ o · #16 05-10-2005, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
3. The statistic of how lucky you were in the ST in your all-in confrontations is irrelevant. The meaningful question is how lucky you should have been -- that is, were the odds favorable when the money went into the pot? That you can do with Poker Stove or Two Dimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that it's useless, at least not before I actually see the figures.

I used to have significantly more wins than seconds, and I always felt very lucky. Recently, I have more seconds than first and I suspect bad luck.

If I could get confirmed that this was bad luck, no worries. But I fear that it's really a leak where I'm playing worse. The Luckometer would be one way of finding out which is true.

Apathy · #17 05-10-2005, 01:23 PM

I really don't think your Ev vs AV even comes close to measuring what you are saying. Luck can't just be determined by how often you win an a showdown compared to how often you should win. What if you were constantly (more then normal) getting dominating hands like AK vs AQ in the end game in situations where if the hands had been reversed you still would have gotten the chips in, but were losing more often with these dominating hands then you should be, the program might conclude you are unlucky, when that could completely not be the case.

Your program only measures how often they win, and makes the assumption that everyone is dealt hands equally. That's a strange assumption when trying to quantify luck.

Apathy · #18 05-10-2005, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I could get confirmed that this was bad luck, no worries. But I fear that it's really a leak where I'm playing worse. The Luckometer would be one way of finding out which is true

[/ QUOTE ]

A luckometer would be nice for this reason, plus it would probably be a weird comfort to mediocre players which would allow them to tilt less during a bad run, but a luckometer like the one talked about in this thread wouldnt be effective or accurate, even HU.

the shadow · #19 05-10-2005, 01:27 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a downswing can be due to any combination of "bad luck" and "bad play." Because luck is perfectly independent of play, having "bad luck" does not tend to make the existence of "bad play" more or less likely. So isn't having "bad luck" irrelevant to determining whether someone's play is good or bad?

Apathy · #20 05-10-2005, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a downswing can be due to any combination of "bad luck" and "bad play." Because luck is perfectly independent of play, having "bad luck" does not tend to make the existence of "bad play" more or less likely. So isn't having "bad luck" irrelevant to determining whether someone's play is good or bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

it is just as irrelevant as using results to make conclusions about your play, but the problem is that people want to correlate results with how they were playing, and if they have bad results they want to correlate how unlucky they were despite their good play to acheive those results.