***Official HEM Red Line Discussion Thread*** - Page 51 - STT Poker Strategy

**TeamTrousers** · 09-07-2010, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regret$

[ ] ICM is important in DoN's

Fail often?

Or did you just make a special effort today?

**TeamTrousers** · 09-07-2010, 02:34 PM

OP, the red line debate has been done many times over, and views differ.

Red line discussion thread

Regret$ · 09-07-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeamTrousers

Fail often?

Or did you just make a special effort today?

Feel free to tell me how I am wrong.

Sly Caveat · 09-07-2010, 03:05 PM

I think they have said they don't calculate 18 mans and up correctly and that it should be disregarded.

(If you think about it, it makes sense because HEM would never have the stack size info from the other tables so it would be impossible to calculate ICM correctly.)

**TeamTrousers** · 09-07-2010, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regret$

Feel free to tell me how I am wrong.

Isn't it obvious?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regret$

[ ] ICM is important in DoN's

This couldn't be more wrong.

suzzer99 · 09-07-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Caveat

I think they have said they don't calculate 18 mans and up correctly and that it should be disregarded.

(If you think about it, it makes sense because HEM would never have the stack size info from the other tables so it would be impossible to calculate ICM correctly.)

Yeah but it could figure out when you're at a final table and just use cEV otherwise. (If Stars would ever help out a little bit and put the number of entrants somewhere in the HH.)

Regret$ · 09-07-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeamTrousers

This couldn't be more wrong.

I explained why I posted that. Do you have any better explaination for why I am wrong?

JoeSchmo · 09-07-2010, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regret$

[ ] 1000 (or even 2000-3000) games is enough to figure out if you are running hot

You failed at this one too.

beserious · 09-07-2010, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Caveat

I think they have said they don't calculate 18 mans and up correctly and that it should be disregarded.

(If you think about it, it makes sense because HEM would never have the stack size info from the other tables so it would be impossible to calculate ICM correctly.)

Meh, it's hard to just "disregard" 18-mans because it looks like alot of the 18-mans for which I lose at the 1st table show up as 9-mans in HEM, while I think most of the final table ones have more players in HEM. If they just use chipev for first table, that would be fine. But not sure if they do this.

suzzer99 · 09-07-2010, 07:45 PM

That is exactly what happens. Your losses go down as 9-man losses - for 18, 45, 90 - any mutli-table SNGs where Stars doesn't put the number of entrants anywhere in the HH. But by the time you get to a FT, HEM figures out it's some kind of MTT and ignores it. So the red line incorporates a lot of the bad early bustouts (as 9-man bustouts) and none of the big $EV FT wins. Unless you have some way of filtering out your 18-man (and up) HHs altogether, your red line will always be too high if you play a lot of them.

Whenever I want to see if I'm really on a lifetime cooler I just look at 6-max, and see my red line is generally where it should be for those.

Carumbo · 09-17-2010, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Yeah but it could figure out when you're at a final table and just use cEV otherwise. (If Stars would ever help out a little bit and put the number of entrants somewhere in the HH.)

I think HEM could make assumptions based on the exact # of chips at the table:
27k = 18man
67.5k = 45man
270k = 180man
and apply $AIEV just at final tables?

Rusemandingo · 09-17-2010, 03:14 AM

This might not be the right place for this question; but my only alternative is STTBBV and getting a serious answer there isnt very easy.

This is a question about 9mans. So your varaince, size of up and downswings, is mainly a function of your roi. The higher your ROI, the less severe your downswings are gonna be. Is there the same relationship between your ROI and the worst under EV stretches you will experience. Say someone with a 5% roi has played 50k games, and the worst 1k game stretch theyve had is 75bis under ev. Would someone with a 10% ROI over the same stretch expect there worst 1k stretch to be more, equal or less BIs under EV than the 5% guy?

wayneking7 · 09-17-2010, 03:26 AM

I think the answer here is no. IMO how well your redline correlates to your actual winnings is purely a function of how lucky u got in all in situations of the tournament. Having a lower or higher ROI should not affect the correlation.

Rusemandingo · 09-17-2010, 03:33 AM

So I guess the only thing that would affect how swingy in comparison to your greenline the redline is, is the format you play. The more severe the bubble factors are in the format you play, the more severely you can get ****ed over equitywise when you run bad. Guess thats why they say the formats with the harshest bubble factors (DONs and hypers) arent well represented by the redline.

Thx for the response wayneking, knew I came to the right place.

wayneking7 · 09-17-2010, 09:58 AM

Yeah, alot of people are under the impression that the redline for games with flat payout structures such as DON's and hypers is not very accurate because of the "check it down" strategy and in these situations no ICM calulations can be made. But i think this can go both ways and there is no reason why this wouldnt even out.

However where i think there may be a problem in the hyper format is in the fact that ICM grossly over-values short stacks which of course is how u spend most of ur time in these.