We can do an all-in luck analysis based on our average equity for our all-in hands, compared to the percentage of pots we won (+ 1/2 ties) and see if our all-in luck is running above or below expectation. That's a standard analysis and is equally valid for cash games or tourneys.

But in cash games, we can convert that to +/-EV by multiplying our equity in each hand by the $ in the pot, and comparing the sum to the actual dollars we won. In tourneys we can't do this because of changing chip values and changing blinds.

So would it be valid to do this in tourneys by using big blinds? So we multiply our equity in the hand by the number of big blinds in the pot, and compare that sum to the total number of big blinds won. Does this introduce non-random factors? It seems to me that pot sizes are not random and there may be decisions that bias this result, for when we decide to get all-in.

Valid result or not?

And if it is valid (random) then is there any reason to assume the two tests would give the same result? Even if both are random. You could be luckier on big pots than small pots in a particular sample, and vice versa. I'm thinking it doesn't have to be correlated, because you're measuing a different thing. Yes?

I apologize if i deviate from the meaning of the thread. However i have a few problems with the whole concept of measuring luck.

What exactly are you trying to measure in a tournament when it comes to luck? Are you measuring how lucky you are after the money goes in eventually regardless of what point this happens or how you get there? I mean say you have set by turn and go all in, get called by flush draw and lose. You have 85% chance to win or something like that and you end up losing. Isnt that identical more or less to going all in with AA calling a maniac moronic big stack all in that has a random hand and losing ?(he was going all in 7 times in a row) . How do you separate the two? Isnt the same kind of bad luck involved in both cases? Who cares about the blinds when you are eliminated in both cases say . How about you have a 3way all in and you lose the main pot but win the partial one and remain at the same chips you started but you had AA and they had 88 and KK respectively (88 got a set) . What is your luck there? Are you lucky or unlucky ? Are you lucky that the set guy was the smaller stack instead of the one covering you? Does that reduce a little bit the initial sense of being unlucky when losing with AA vs 2 others?

You have KK and end up all in in a table of 10 with 8 covering you and only one smaller than you and there is an AA at the table to call you and you lose but it belongs to the only guy you cover! Isnt that both lucky and unlucky? Lucky that from all 9 others the AA belonged to the safe choice and yet unlucky that you had KK when another had AA at the same time? How do you measure the luck here? KK deserved to lose but in some other sense you are lucky the AA didnt land in the wrong players so to speak.

I find hard to understand how to measure luck in an objective manner.

I mean what is your luck when you flop a small set and go all in eventually only to see a higher set called you and then you lose . I mean the bad luck here is not the result of the all in (you didnt have bad luck because you lost you deserved to lose once the money went in but did you deserve to flop a set over set? Isnt that now suddenly the only valid measure of your true luck in that hand? I mean how unlucky is one to be placed in such tough spot? Or reverse that and say you are the guy with the bigger set and you win . Is that considered big luck to win when you had the edge to begin with to some 96% or so . Clearly big deal in terms of luck for this guy (nothing important really 96% happened and registered as 100% big deal) but wow how lucky it is to get paid when you flop a set because the other guy has set too. Are we even measuring true luck here or are we measuring things that are not exactly the main issue here when you try to say i got lucky today or very unlucky? Wouldnt you rather refer to the cold decks you got than the result itself in terms of chip EV? Isnt the cold deck the reason you lost rather than the equity when the money went in?

Finally say you are at the final table and you are 5th and very small stack (tiny prize equity above 5th prize) and suddenly a massive all in develops between a guy that has KK that covers all and 2 others that both have AA. The AA guys also cover you by a big margin. Then all in is won by a set from the KK guy . The 2 others are out and you are instantly elevated to 3rd place. How lucky is that? And yet you are not at all involved in the hand!!!

Yeah you are definitely deviating from the meaning of the thread. All in EV has a well-defined meaning and it is not in any sense meant to encapsulate ALL luck.

So, is there a problem with just computing the chip EV for tournaments? That's what you're describing, right?

I'm talking about using BB EV, not chips, so that we can normalize it.

I actually did a large sample like this and found that the BB +/- from expectation doesn't exactly correlate with the Equity +/- but it wasn't far off. That isn't surprising because we don't know how your luck will be distributed to small and large pots. What I'm trying to figure out is if this is biased by player decisions or if it is truly random and should approach expectation.