General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Seriously, remove aiev from your reports and graphs and don't even think about it. It's not helpful and not really all that meaningful. To the extent it has meaning it doesn't mean what many people think and you can't do much about it.

Looking at your equity when the money goes in is good in big pots in terms of ensuring that in general you get it in good, but all-in EV is just a waste of brain time.

I fully understand the need to vent from time to time, but no matter how you look at it the only thing that matters is whether you made a good decision versus villain's range or not.

next session is completely irrelevant from the previous but next N sessions are more probable to even out your statistical deviation so you can expect that in the future you may have some more downswings.
but,im not a mathematician.

It would be interesting to see what the all in ev of someone like nanonoko is. Is there any way to look this up?

next session is completely irrelevant from the previous but next N sessions are more probable to even out your statistical deviation so you can expect that in the future you may have some more downswings.
but,im not a mathematician.

Good job you're not a mathematician because that's completely wrong. Whats in the past has no effect on our likelihood to have "run good" or "run bad" in the future.

It doesnt make sense.

If I know that eventually my winrate approaches my ev (not all-in ev, just ev)...and I am running above ev for session after session, then isn't the probability of my next session being below ev getting greater and greater as time goes on?

Wouldn't it have to be? We have to approach ev, so the longer we diverge from ev the more likely in the future we are going to converge on it.

EDIT: Actually now that I think about it this would be true if all fluctuations were equal, but they're not---> we could be slightly above ev for 20 sessions and then have one really bad one.

If I know that eventually my winrate approaches my ev

Winrates converge but total bb doesn't. You can be 20BI below EV after 20k hands then 50BI below EV after 1mil hands, winrate has massively converged but total BB EV has widened, ie. you didn't get the run good back from 20k -> 1mil hands.

Large sample graphs generally show the EV close to $ won but that's only on a relative scale, if you zoomed in to an equivalent scale that a 20k hand graph would be on (like the Y axis is only 20BIs) then generally you'll see the real results are way further from EV than a 20k graph.

Or you could just think about it logically on how past probabilities are meant to effect future probabilities in your specific case. You'd need some crazy karma machine or god.

but next N sessions are more probable to even out your statistical deviation so you can expect that in the future you may have some more downswings.

If this were true it would be the most interesting and scary phenomenon in the universe and I'd suggest directing massive amount of scientific resources towards understanding it.

Ya but mitch I meant total ev not just AIEV, but what you are saying makes perfect sense regardless.

Wouldn't it have to be? We have to approach ev, so the longer we diverge from ev the more likely in the future we are going to converge on it.

So, after 3 times coming red on the roulette table, the % for black is > 50% (or 49.97% for the purists) the next turn? Like what ... like 100% for the next three turns?

Nevertheless, I think it´s quite funny that OP precisely knows how much he is ahead / below EV but he does not know the exact number of hands ... ^^

If this were true it would be the most interesting and scary phenomenon in the universe and I'd suggest directing massive amount of scientific resources towards understanding it.

Isn't this describing regression toward the mean? Quote from Wikipedia "the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on a second measurement, and—a fact that may superficially seem paradoxical—if it is extreme on a second measurement, will tend to have been closer to the average on the first measurement".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

This assumes that OP actually is a +EV player and his negative sessions have been toward the negative extreme.

Nevertheless, I think it´s quite funny that OP precisely knows how much he is ahead / below EV but he does not know the exact number of hands ... ^^

It's not really rocket science. In PT3 the all-in EV is displayed in a graph. Money won - and money I should have won according to the All-in EV filter. I looked at it in the beginning of the month as mentioned. It was just about where it should be if everything was distributed fairly. I then had some terrifying sessions and looked at it again and I was 20 buy-ins below EV.

I could start going through each individual session and examine what happened when. But what's the point anyway?

Isn't this describing regression toward the mean? Quote from Wikipedia "the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on a second measurement, and—a fact that may superficially seem paradoxical—if it is extreme on a second measurement, will tend to have been closer to the average on the first measurement".

Oh, yeah if that's what snowboard meant then huntse and I completely misunderstood... if he meant the next sessions are more likely to be closer to the mean (regression towards mean) as he's running really good (or bad), then yeah that's right. The evening out, more downswings phrases really threw me, like someone saying oh it's been 10 blacks in a row so there'll be more reds to even it out.

I are silly.

Cards clearly have favorites among us and they do seem to remember your past luck even though you are tossing around coins to prove that it's not true.

Quantum cards!

Have you also seen the same card be in multiple places at once (the SAME card, not a copy of it, this is important), cards having two simultaneous values or cards tunnelling through the table? This may help your claim.

in simpler words i meant this which is intuitive in all human beings:

if you run hotter than the sun, you can expect not to run as hot in the future cause the previous was improbable and improbable things dont happen too often.

so if he got 1/100 in his first 400K hands, 99/100 he wont have such a hot EV in the next 400k.
so OP can expect not to make so much profit in the next 400k hands because his profit was improbable unless he changes something ie becoming a better player.

now if u play infinite number of hands, you will expect to wash out your EV in the whole sample that contains the previous hands, so 400k hands + infinite = 0 EV and sometime miss luck will get it back.

you just have to live long enough to play infinite hands