Worse, Think the ABI of that sample is like $75 and 110k under EV, so more like 1500 ABI i think. Tried to go back in and look but HM ****ting itself when i try atm.

Not as impressive as waynekings but its getting there, last 3.5 months, 6m turbos.

That graph from wayneking should be posted in the "online poker is rigged" thread as evidence.

Thanks for pointing me to that thread. I went through some of the hands, and confirmed that the issue is with regards to split pots. The EV-diff assumes no split pots; therefore whenever you get all-in your EV-diff will assume you got luckier than reality. This is regardless of whether you won or lost the hand.

However, the players not in the hand experience the opposite effect. When two players get in AK v AK on the first hand, EV-diff assumes one player will bust into the other (which is good for players not in the hand). So when the pot actually splits, EV-diff will show the other players as getting rather unlucky... when in reality it was pretty much an expected event.

It would seem to me that this should somewhat cancel out since in the long-term you'd be on both ends of this equally. Unless you are playing in such a way that causes you to get AIPF more often than other players. In that thread one of the HEM guys mentions noticing from actual databases that the EV-line should be ~30% higher than it actually is, so I'm not really sure what to think.

Thank you for the feedback. I will forward this post to Patvs (who is the one you mentioned from that thread) and see if he can comment here when he has time as this is all way over my head to be completely honest.

Sorry, but it only works for an actual run of hands and I don't have a parser written for anything else. If anybody is interested then here's what I did:

The algorithm to calculate EV_diff (ie: difference/gap between the red and green line) is this:

You then end up with a number which is the amount of $equity you ran above EV (positive) or below EV (negative). This is the amount that is "added on" to the green line-in HEM to get the red-line (if you divide this by 0.1 for 10-man or 0.1667 for 6-man, etc you get the number of buy-ins you are running above/below if needed...).

A monte-carlo algorithm to work out how bad you are running is very similar:

So you now have a number that tells you the % of times you'd expect to run worse for that particular section of games/all-ins (eg: Percentile = 1% for a months worth of data then this [or worse] is only expected about 1 in every 8.3 years, etc).

You can also calculate the SD of the EV_diff_monte_carlo bit and use the area under a Gaussian, but I've no idea how you can get/estimate this from the payout, game-type, etc (as mentioned above it could even be player/strategy dependant as to the types of outcome distribution you'll see...).

Maybe somebody with some time on their hands could write this to work with the stars hypers as it is very helpful (for you sanity!) to be able to gauge just how extreme a bad run is in terms of rarity (this is what I suggested to bumpking a few years back when he had a really bad run and I think he can vouch for it helping him).

Juk

There are two bugs at work here. A EV issue with hypers. (causing the 30% difference). The EV numbers in HM1 (when you click on the ICM button) are actually accurate, yet the wrong numbers are used in reports (and in HM2).
The cause of this difference is our simplified 'look-up table' which doesn't differentiate between for example AdKd vs AhQd and AdKd vs AcQc or AdKd vs AcQh

The splitpot bug is a different bug: HM-5469. I've just re-bumped that ticket and re-assigned it to a different programmer.

Forgive my laziness, I don't want the exercise at the moment. Can someone explain why not considering the suits introduces a 30% bias lowering the redline (or whatever it actually does)?

[edit]
@Juk: Thanks for the pseudo-code; I get a clearer picture of what you're doing now.

Patvs-

Thanks for responding. However I too, along with the poster above me, am still confused what is causing the 30% bug and why. If you have a good understanding of it, an explanation would be awesome.

What needs more explanation is how this has been a problem for 9 months and it still isn't fixed yet.

U ever met a person who's doing witchcraft ? Or u ever heard someone talking strange spells ?

I am not sure if those of us in tech support can answer this but hopefully Pat will reply again when he has time. It is probably a question better suited for our developers but we try to keep them working on development instead of answering forums.


This I can answer: HM2 is our priority now. This started happening after our development focus shifted from HM1 to HM2 and EV issues are not considered critical bugs since it doesn't affect the live play HUD or actual results. EV issues take a back seat in HM2 as well.

But surely even back seat issues get fixed in 9 months!?!? Its a joke realy and has caused me to move to PT4 with no intention of even moving to HM2 now, and im not alone.

I am not replying to this in this thread as I don't want to derail this thread any further than it already has been. I believe you and I have already had this discussion over the past months in the HM support thread so nothing good will come from rehashing it here in this thread. If anyone has questions about this they can feel free to post in our support thread or on our forums and I will do my best to address their questions but this topic isn't really germane to this thread IMO.

Good luck at the tables.

I have also now bought PT4, which sucks because I love HM1, but I need my EV calculations to be correct

you're not replying to that in this thread because it makes HEM look like what it is - a really awfully managed product. you didn't seem to have an issue 'derailing' (you do realize this is a red-line thread, and you're talking about HEMs red-line, right?) the thread before.

idk/c how high up you are in the HEM company but the whole HEM team is so terrible and your full-price beta software just a shell of what HEM used to be when RVG was running it.
i remember someone complaining about a bug in HEM1/2 a few months ago and one of the HEM reps actually said "to quote fozzy, it'll be fixed when it's fixed". solid customer support.

fix the known issues, hire someone who knows how to talk to customers, charge monthly/yearly for licenses.

you used to make really nice table mods, tho, so i can't be too mad at you

^ Spot on

I didn't read all of this so sorry if this is WOAT post but with all the uproar you'd think they would just fix the damn EV line. We are paying customers of their brand. Just fix it already.

Thing is, we already paid so why should they care? New customers wont know anything about it, so its not a problem.

PT4 EV line confirmed 34% higher then the HM1 redline, which based on the company's own statement means the PT4 EV is probably dead on.

+1 this is so pathetic

Ive checked a few hands on PT4 since their last update and their EV has been spot on each time.

Welp how much does PT4 cost? Might be time to make the switch. Hem2s too glitchy and slow for me, I'm on HEM1 but if EV is this inaccurate there's no reason for me to stay there.

For what it's worth, I imported my last 28k games into PT4 for comparison. (Merge 6-max super-turbo STTs)

+221 BI in HM1
+306 BI in PT4

And here lies the problem. Even if 30 people come in this thread and say **** this I'm switching to PT4, HM support doesn't care because they already have our money. There's no incentive to keep us around.