Quote:
Originally Posted by chinagambler
Your software gives different ranges than HoldemResources Calculator's PSM model for Stars' hyper-turbo satellites (6-max, 50/50 payment for top 2, 500 stack 25/50/10 blinds). Shouldn't they both give the same results if they are based on the same model? How can I get more accurate results?
I have no idea about the veracity or completeness of anybody's PSM implementation other than my own. I have spent no time trying to compare results or anything like that, so I cant comment on the state of its implementation. While I have described the PSM algorithm in general in these forums and elsewhere, I have yet to provide a formal, detailed description of how its implemented.
As far as I'm concerned, SnG Solver *is* PSM... and that is certainly my
official position.
Now that said (and in the interest of not wanting to appear unresponsive
), I will note that there is quite a lot of potential wiggle-room in the PSM algorithm. This is because of the "P" in PSM... the predictive part.
PSM assumes that future players actions are made according to Nash equilibrium strategies... the problem is that since
exact Nash equilibrium strategies are never available, an implementation must rely on
approximate Nash strategies... and as soon as you start introducing approximations, you open the door to differences between otherwise identical implementations.
The reality of algorithms that can approximate Nash strategies in a timely matter is that they are very imperfect... very prone to numerical instability and getting an equilibrium to settle can require a lot of mathematical shenanigans. So really, I would be very surprised to see two independently developed PSM implementations give exactly the same results.
Accuracy? Well, if you mean the most accurate PSM implementation, then of course by definition its SnG Solver
... if you mean more "accurate" equities or ranges... well... thats tricky and is sort of like asking who can draw the most accurate unicorn (assuming for the sake of argument that unicorns exist, its just that no one has ever seen one). Without the real thing to compare against, how could we say?
It is possible to make *some* rough judgements...
We know that a unicorn must have a horn and that it probably attracts rainbows... so I guess we can say that a PSM unicorn drawing is more accurate than an ICM unicorn drawing.
Similarly, we can know that a PSM-Nash-approximate strategy has an advantage over ICM-Nash-approximate strategy:
But without an actual Nash strategy or
true $EV stack values to compare against, its hard to really say more. Anything else is probably, at best, speculation.
If one model says the BTN should push 24% and another says push 27%, I would advise against obsessing about this kind of difference. It is unlikely to improve your actual poker game.
PSM is meant to plug some of the
giant holes that exist in equity models like ICM, but better chip equity estimation is only a part of developing better tournament poker strategies.
Without giving anything away (since clearly, things I talk about have a way of ending up in other peoples programs
), I will say that I believe improving chipEV to $EV estimation is no longer the weakest link in tournament strategy analysis. There are bigger gains to be had in other areas... and this is where SnG Solver will be headed.
Last edited by sng_jason; 06-07-2012 at 11:03 PM.
Reason: mispelling the name of my own software looks pretty silly