Hi, I would like to share my graph and get some feedback.

1)

2)


First picture was in 2015. Then I took 1 year off in 2016.

Second picture is 2017, this month June (1 month play).

I noticed that my graph is very similar to 2015. My ALL-IN adj graph is so high. Is this normal or some type of leak? Does anyone have similar stats on this network?

It pretty much means you are running under EV. AKA luck in all in situations. Depending on your stakes, you are pretty much just breaking even.

Hey blobb,

Thanks for the input.

My only concern is that my "luck" from 2 years ago (2015) is exactly the same as now (2017). Is this a coincidence? My all-in adj is way too high. Perhaps my pokertracker 4 is miscalculating, but it seems to be correct as my profit is just breaking even. That's why I wanted to know if this is a norm on such network.

Lol, Du30 what are you really asking here?

All I can say is, I hope that you were getting near the top of the beast promotions when you were playing. ACR is extremely tough for cash game players to succeed without adopting a playing style that will maximize those benefits.

Unfortunately, I was not in the top beast promotions. I was at the bottom range, $100 weekly prize. I played only 2-3 hours daily. But I did make a few thousands from rakeback + cage winnings.

What I'm really asking is, I am losing lots of my all-ins at the same rate from 2 years ago and now. It seems that my luck EV does not change. It remains constant, same rate. The more hands I play, the higher my graph all-in goes and the more breakeven I become.

Since the graph is continuous, Is this still a form of luck? or A major leak in my game?

Do you notice the stretch of your last 1000 hands where your red line is running close to flat? In order to improve your winnings, you need to win more hands that don't go to showdown. Focusing purely on the information presented in order to make more $$ on ACR, you will need to introduce more bluff lines and play more trap based style where you are inducing more people to try and bluff you on turn and rivers. You really want to avoid stacking off on the flop unless your hand is a near lock.

Think about it this way, you are playing online with some other pretty solid opponents, so even if you are a favorite, chances are they aren't just calling your all in as 20% dogs all the time. So you are probably finding yourself in 60/40 spots often for big pots... which is really just playing heads/tails. You want to have more control over your money.

Or you can adjust your focus to try and squeeze in more tables to get more rake-back and bonuses... You have a breakeven system, so just increase your time playing

I see. got it. Sometimes though, they are the one that goes all-in and I'm forced to call.

With regards to adding more tables & time. Yup, it seems the most logical.

No.

60/40 has 20% more EV than 50/50.

Using your logic, 70/30 is the same as 60/40 and 80/20 is the same as 70/30.

No.

Break-even systems, including all-in EV, long-term, swing back and forth, above and below 0. They don't have an all-in EV rocketing to the moon.

OP is a winning player who happens to be on the bad side of variance.

@Du30 Mess around with this: http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/ It'll make you feel better.

Look to my latest post at the bot-thread here. I think the bots are the reason for this, they share holecards and with this they can generate a higher ev. For u it looks like a downswing, but in reality its no one, the bots just exploit u.

And so far, I have not seen one single human player who is running over EV with a big samplesize (300k+ hands) on wpn-network.

This post represents "peak-bot hysteria".

Neurosis has taken hold.

We are in a bot bubble.

Running below all-in EV, a set calculation, after hypothetical bots have received and acted upon all possible input, is now because of bots.

Just to clarify my above post.

If OP's all-in EV line is pointing up, then villain's is pointing down.

Even if villain had knowledge of blockers, villain's all-in EV would still point down, maybe a tad flatter, but still point down.

NL blockers have most importance when deciding to 3, 4, 5-bet (red line), bluffing the board (red line) and/or at showdown (blue line). That's not what is being analyzed here.

From what I recall in 2015, I don't remember going a lot of all-ins where it was heads/tails. I remember I was very much ahead because I remember how painful it was. At first I said something isn't right. But later on, I ignored it, became immune to the feeling because I ended up growing my $200 deposit to about $10,000 (from rakeback, beast, cage prizes combined). I was making money, although I thought I should have made more.

As I've said earlier, I set myself a limit to only play 2-3 hours daily. But there were times where I know the table was fishy, even the regs, and I said to myself. I am not leaving these games no matter what. I over extended to 19 hours straight. I gave up, feeling defeated. Here's a screenshot:



This month, I deposited about the same amount, starting fresh. And already, that same occurrences from before are happening again.

Listen to Knuckle Puck. Sharing hole cards would lower your EV, not force a gap between EV and actual. To force a gap, the deal would need to be rigged.

How many 300k+ hand graphs have you seen in total? How many where reasonably close to EV and how many significantly below?


@ Du30, you can check with PT about the technical accuracy for WPN. Most likely, it's just small-sample variance.

I'll take a look at your thread. I don't think it was bots that's causing my all-in losses. I went all-in ahead. I should be winning those hands. No bots can control the math odds.

I do know of a bot there but only one. And I never cared because he was exploitable.

I ignored him because as I moved up limits, he was no longer around. He wasn't significant enough to be cautious of. His sn was never on the top beast and he never moved up. I think someone just uses that account as a guinea pig experiment.

As far as humans running over EV on ACR with a good sample size, I would like to see it if anyone have samples.

Assuming a good sample, those should be rare, correct? You might mean over EV on samples similar to yours (smallish sample). Seeing good samples that are close to EV (as close as they should likely be) would also provide some reassurance.

Keep in mind, graphs of bad runs are a much more popular item to post on 2+2 than are graphs of run good. Human nature.

At this point, I'm positive you're passively suggesting, or looking for evidence, that it's rigged. Instead of beating around the bush, just say it.

Good luck on the tables and in your RNG search.

That is true.

ha, I have always defended online sites from complaints of being rigged.

I was encouraging my cousin to deposit on ACR. He asked me what if online poker is rigged? I've always told people in the past and told him the same; they make so much money from rake, that it is pointless to rig it.

I ended up being the one depositing. His cc & debit were declined. Out of curiousity, I tested my visa card and declined also. Then finally I made bitcoin. It worked. Im back on ACR.

In my original post, the only thing I was searching for was for people with similar results so I can feel/know that I'm not the only one. And to find out a possible major leak in my game as I'm still breaking even.

Eh, maybe I assumed too much.

The language you used left a lot open to interpretation, and the culture of this WPN forum is so toxic, I have to assume the worst.

There's a subset of people here who don't put any work in, just whine and complain. "Bots, The Beast, regs, impossible, too hard, rigged, blah, blah, blah."

It's frustrating but you're break-even in realized EV only, not a break-even player. You look like a solid winning player to me. The games are tough, so to have graphs like yours, unless you're extremely lucky, you have to be smart and have done a lot of studying. Keep doing you, man.

That first graph is brutal bad luck

The bots have 2 illegal ways to exploit u.

a) Collusion Play: Here you are right, that dont force a gap between ev and acutal winnings (it just lower your winnings)

Example: btn (bot) openraise, sb (bot) collude => bb (human) lose some of his ev, because the sb-player is for the bb-player a protection that the btn cant openraise a widder range, but if he dont do this job then its like a situation in a heads-up game and there the btn can openraise 70+% of his hands instead of around 40%, if the sb do his job right and with this the bb lose some of his ev. And this is similar in x other situations, for example if the sb and bb are colluding bots, then the sb can 3bet much more hands against openraises, because the bb dont exploit this with 4bets and so on and no matter how good the human is, he can nothing do against this, he will always lose some of his ev.

b) Holecard-Sharing: Here u are wrong. If the bots knows dead-cards then they can make better allin-decisions and this is not considered in the ev-luck-function of your poker-tracker (because the tracker dont have the informations about other holecards) and so it looks for the tracker that you run unlucky, but in real it isnt. And this is a big danger, because you think just unluck, no problem in future it can change and you play on and play on and then u can maybe waste x years and much money for that!

Example: human 5bet-Broke-Range, AA-QQ, AKs, AKo, A5s. The bot has QQ and with this he has an equity of 43,4%. But if the bot knows that for example one A and one K has been folded (dead cards) then his QQ has an equity of 51,5% (or if he knows a Q is one dead-Card then his ev is only 38%) and this is not considered in the pokertracker ev-luck. And this is similiar in x other situation, like on a 2suited Flop, the bot knows for example there are 2 dead-cards against a 3suited Turn/River and then his real Flop-allin-equity is higher as the shown in the tracker.

Out of curiosity though. Why not try playing another site? And even if it's just for experiment sake, play another 140k hands on a different site and compare your overall results. Obviously you are a good player, so site shouldn't really matter. Are you telling yourself that you are playing for the promotion? It's possible there is an easier player pool on another site.

Yes, you are correct. I had only thought about (a) but I clearly said hole-card sharing. Thanks for taking the time to make a clear post correcting me. The only thing I will add is an appeal for players to still be careful with sample sizes when trying to draw any firm conclusions. To make a case that being under EV is due to hole-sharing colluders (or any nefarious activity), you would still want to rule out reasonable variance.

I play online poker since 10 years and in this time I have followed hundreds of blogs and I think I have seen over thousands hand-graphs. And in all this time I have seen many charts with 50 or 100+ stacks under ev, so for me this is just normal and no big thing.

But then I start thinking about it. If there are many who run such unlucky, then if all is right, there must be on the other side, many who run very lucky. And I understand that most peoble dont want to show their overEV-charts in the public, but there are always some special kind of peoble who think diffrent or want attract attention or want to induce a tilt to other regs with showing their luck and additional I asked for this in the biggest german poker forum. But so far it looks that realy no one has ever seen a chart or know somebody who is runnig 50 or 100+ Stack over ev, on an other side as pokerstars (I think stars has the best bot-protection and so I take this side out, I hate amaya and their changes over the last years, but I think the games there are fair...) and overall this looks a little bit suspicious for me.

Yeah, I feel what you're saying. What I don't have a good feel for, is how much the effect could be from sharing cards, in terms of impact on the gap between EV and actual. (Would be interesting to know, as a student of variance.)

I'm definitely empathetic to being under EV, as I had a run that went to 1k buyins under EV in 6m SNG hypers. (On shady Merge of all places ). But there were also several similar graphs from players on stars, so... *shrug*.

What I do know from studying variance a decent bit, is that swings can be truly brutal for no reason other than luck. That makes it hard, I think, to say very much with high confidence about under EV runs being due to cheaters.