Next SnG tool - the Luckometer - Page 3

eastbay · #21 05-10-2005, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think your Ev vs AV even comes close to measuring what you are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to read my other posts in this thread.

eastbay

eastbay · #22 05-10-2005, 01:48 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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Follow you so far.

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

Only when correlated with results does a luck quantifier indicate something about play.

Losses can only happen through some combination of bad luck and/or bad play. If I am getting no bad luck, the only way I can lose is through bad play.

Losing more than the rake with no bad luck is proof that I am playing badly. Without that quantifier, it can be very difficult to tell if the bad results are the result of bad luck or bad play.

Whether it's possible to really nail down and quantify all the components of luck is another question.

eastbay

Slim Pickens · #23 05-10-2005, 01:51 PM

[ 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 ]

Like a dope, I did this by hand. It served to pacify me during a big downswing. That's about all. stupidsucker proposed something similar ("So you want to know if your good" I think was the post title) but no one really got what he was saying.

Slim

eastbay · #24 05-10-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A luckometer like the one talked about in this thread wouldnt be effective or accurate, even HU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given what I've said elsewhere in the thread about the many components of luck, I will say this:

I think you would be very surprised at the strength of the correlation between river luck and bankroll swings. It is very strong.

eastbay

KJ o · #25 05-10-2005, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you would be very surprised at the strength of the correlation between river luck and bankroll swings. It is very strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I *really* think you should add it to the Pushometer! I think a lot of people would like proof that they are unucky (independently of whether they actually are or not).

Scuba Chuck · #26 05-10-2005, 04:30 PM

I really think it should be called the luck ah me ter. It sounds much more professional than the other, if it really is going to be used.

tminus · #27 05-10-2005, 05:34 PM

probably one of the funniest posts ive seen at this site

tminus · #28 05-10-2005, 05:40 PM

dont need it...
just play tight and consult a 1-900 psychic when you get heads up

burningyen · #29 05-10-2005, 06:33 PM

Is it bad luck for your KK to run into AA?

KJ o · #30 05-11-2005, 03:15 AM

Well, duh! I specifically mentioned that meassuring the luck in all-in situations after the hole cards are known is only one aspect of luck, but suggesting that it is uninteresting just because it's not 100% complete is silly bordering on moronic.

The pushometer will tell you that getting your chips in the middle with KK is a good idea. The luckometer will tell you that running into AA and losing is unlucky, but only slightly so. Together, they will tell you that you played well but was unlucky. Change KK, AA and losing to T4o, K9s and winning and they will tell the opposite story.