I noticed some shocking inconsistancies with the HM redline when I started playing HU hypers. One that sticks out was I got it in on the very first hand, on the turn, and my villain had 3 outs. He got there on the river. B/c I'm a results oriented sadist, I immediately refresh my graph for the day, and my green line (actual) drops one buyin, and my redline.... also drops, just a fraction of a buyin. This is immediately following getting all 1k chips in play in the center on the turn of the first hand with ~94% equity.
The red-line dropping a fraction of a buyin after winning is correct, but the green-line thing just sounds like a bug.
At the lower stakes there are tons of bad players who do not understand icm and proper bubble play.As a result they often clash with each other and therefore spread the equity all over the place.As far as I understand if I just sit out in a 6max game and two big stacks clash busting each other I receive the equity and as a result HEM counts it as "lucky".It assumes that within the period of time it will even out as in theory I should spread the same amount of EV but I really doubt this is the case.
So the question would be is it possible to constantly run above red line in lower stakes games where the opposition is bad and you often receive "lucky" ev just by sitting out?
I don't think you understand what all-in EV is measuring (see the posts above).
Thx for the link. So HEM1's incorrect payouts for Merge DoNs as top 3 structures shouldn't mess up the red line just affect the variance prob making it higher. That makes sense to me.
I don't buy that at all. I understand how theoretically having a 65/35 as opposed to a 70/30 payout structure could lead to a higher variance red line even though it's still fairly accurate, but we're talking about totally different payout structures. In a DoN we have a different bubble. I mean imagine we win every game because we never play a hand, but six of our opponents went all in on the first hand. According to a 50/30/20 structure we have 15$ in equity after the hand, but we won 20$, so every game we play our red line moves up 5$ but our green line moves up 10$ even though we had a 100% chance to win.
I can show you an example of a hand where HM shows me running 2 BI over EV in one hand when I actually only ran 40% of a BI over EV, and it's mathematically impossible to run more than 2 BI over or under EV in one hand as the maximum payout is 2 BI and the min is 0 BI. We would get just as accurate of a red line for DoN's if we used chip EV as opposed to ICM of a 50/30/20, and they would both be wrong.
I don't buy that at all. I understand how theoretically having a 65/35 as opposed to a 70/30 payout structure could lead to a higher variance red line even though it's still fairly accurate, but we're talking about totally different payout structures. In a DoN we have a different bubble. I mean imagine we win every game because we never play a hand, but six of our opponents went all in on the first hand. According to a 50/30/20 structure we have 15$ in equity after the hand, but we won 20$, so every game we play our red line moves up 5$ but our green line moves up 10$ even though we had a 100% chance to win.
The green line is what's wrong then.
The red line is simply the $EV_diff value added to the green line and if the green line is wrong then obviously the red line will be too.
Seriously, it seems every time I open this thread now there is somebody trying to refute the HEM red line for one reason or another?
If people just forgot about the HEM "red line" and concentrated on $EV_diff instead (it's a very simple calculation; no more complex that working out the $EV of an action), they'd quickly realize that their "quest" is a futile one (excluding HEM bugs obviously) and move on.
I'm not on a quest to prove the ev diff stat wrong at all, I know it's wrong, I did the math. I want to know if there's a way to get HM to recognize that I'm playing a DoN as opposed to a 50/30/20.
I'm not on a quest to prove the ev diff stat wrong at all, I know it's wrong, I did the math. I want to know if there's a way to get HM to recognize that I'm playing a DoN as opposed to a 50/30/20.
According to a 50/30/20 structure we have 15$ in equity after the hand, but we won 20$, so every game we play our red line moves up 5$ but our green line moves up 10$ even though we had a 100% chance to win.
So ignoring the chance of an obscure multiway tie and we assume 100% chance to win:
You can use any equity mapping function you like here (and get the payout structure as wrong as you want too!), but as you can see there is no way the $EV_diff value can be anything but zero:
Quote:
According to a 50/30/20 structure we have 15$ in equity after the hand, but we won 20$, so every game we play our red line moves up 5$ but our green line moves up 10$ even though we had a 100% chance to win.
and since $EV_diff is the difference between the red and green lines by definition, what you are observing is not the fault of the $EV_diff calculation or it using the wrong payout structure.
Maybe HEM has some weird bug, but the calculation and the use of the wrong payout structure is NOT to blame.
So on this hand my "EV diff" is -20.54$ (In a 10$ tournament) which we know is obviously wrong right away because it's impossible to run any more than 19.99$ over or under EV in any given hand due to the max payout being 20 dollars.
So anyways, we can use an ICM calculator (I'm using this one: http://www.icmpoker.com/Calculator.aspx) and we see that when I win the hand my equity is $20 (obviously) and that happens 19% of the time. When I lose the hand my equity is $14.1 which happens 81% of the time.
SOOOOOO my EV in the hand is .81*14.1+.19*20 = 15.22. Since I won 20 my diff should be -4.78. My actual diff, as previously mentioned, was -20.54.
Now to test the hypothesis that it's using a 50/30/20 payout we can try it again with the same calculator and the new structure.
Our equity when we lose is now 9.7 and when we win it's 35.1. So our equity in the hand is 14.5 and if we win our equity increases to 35.1. 14.5 - 35.1 =-20.6.
So the red line is wrong in DoN's. Does anybody know how to fix it? or do you still think the red line is correct?
I accept that it is, but the post you made in post #1100 was in reference to vookenmeister's post about "variance being higher" (and in turn the earlier linked article)?
Yes, it could be the case that for DoNs using cEV or even the green-line is a better predictor but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the maths; it's simply your equity estimation function is too wrong to be useful.
BTW, you're not the only one frustrated by this: HEM1 still thinks that Party $11 Speeds have a $10.25+$0.75 payout structure for some unknown random reason and it looks like it's never gonna get fixed thanks to HEM2
BTW, you're not the only one frustrated by this: HEM1 still thinks that Party $11 Speeds have a $10.25+$0.75 payout structure for some unknown random reason and it looks like it's never gonna get fixed thanks to HEM2
Juk
The most frustrating part is that I emailed them last night essentially explaining the problem in the same way as I did in this thread and they sent me back a response acting like I don't know what luck adjusted EV is, so now I either have to give up or thumb through my database and come up with a bunch of examples where the EV is wrong and somehow convince them that they need to fix the problem.
Two Plus Two
T
(2 players, 2 are all-in)
and lost (-2,592 net)
Linear Mode
