[HUD] PokerTracker 4 for Windows & Mac OS X - 2+2 Support Thread
02-09-2015
, 03:02 PM
Quote:
I assume you were playing Omaha, correct? We discovered that there was a bug in the 888 hand history, Omaha hands did not contain the Hero's hole cards, this bug caused the side effects you witnessed.
As of today, our tests show that 888 has fixed this bug, hole cards have returned to the hand history at Omaha tables.
- TT
As of today, our tests show that 888 has fixed this bug, hole cards have returned to the hand history at Omaha tables.
- TT
02-09-2015
, 04:41 PM
- TT
02-09-2015
, 05:13 PM
Quote:
Take a look at the hand history text file saved by 888 on your computer. Do you see your hole cards? If so, please create a support ticket on our website and attach the hand history so we can investigate. If not, please contact 888 support to notify them that the hand history is missing the HERO's hole cards.
- TT
- TT
ty for your time
02-10-2015
, 08:54 AM
02-10-2015
, 08:41 PM
02-11-2015
, 08:58 AM
Hi.
The way you calculate C Net Adjusted for Bounty sng is incorrect.
I will do very simple proof.
First, I was importing with these settings:
I imported couple sngs where I finished 1st (so we can calculate net adjusted for all players) each into empty database (for easy comparsion).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparsion, here are the correct results for some 15$ 9man turbo sngs (13.89$ + 1.11$) with 50/30/20 payouts (on pokerstars):
9.99$ is the rake of all players, and its apparent the sum of "C net adj" of all players should be zero minus the rake. so its correct, (1c lost due to rounding probably in some games)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is 15$ 9man turbo Knockout on pokerstars
11.28$ + 2.82$ + 0.9$
(2.82$ = bounty
0.9$ = rake)
50/30/20
Now look at the differences of sums of "C net won" and "C net adj".
"C net adj" in PT4 is undervalued, and many KO sng regs who use PT4 claim the same.
Please will you look at the "C Net Adjusted" for Bounty sng again?
I wrote here couple of times in the past regarding this matter and every time you wrote that its correct. Its not, please will you finally fix it. It would be so appreciated.
Thanks
The way you calculate C Net Adjusted for Bounty sng is incorrect.
I will do very simple proof.
First, I was importing with these settings:
I imported couple sngs where I finished 1st (so we can calculate net adjusted for all players) each into empty database (for easy comparsion).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparsion, here are the correct results for some 15$ 9man turbo sngs (13.89$ + 1.11$) with 50/30/20 payouts (on pokerstars):
9.99$ is the rake of all players, and its apparent the sum of "C net adj" of all players should be zero minus the rake. so its correct, (1c lost due to rounding probably in some games)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is 15$ 9man turbo Knockout on pokerstars
11.28$ + 2.82$ + 0.9$
(2.82$ = bounty
0.9$ = rake)
50/30/20
Now look at the differences of sums of "C net won" and "C net adj".
"C net adj" in PT4 is undervalued, and many KO sng regs who use PT4 claim the same.
Please will you look at the "C Net Adjusted" for Bounty sng again?
I wrote here couple of times in the past regarding this matter and every time you wrote that its correct. Its not, please will you finally fix it. It would be so appreciated.
Thanks
Last edited by PokerTracker; 02-11-2015 at 11:51 AM.
Reason: spoilers removed to improve legibility
02-11-2015
, 12:20 PM
Quote:
Hi.
The way you calculate C Net Adjusted for Bounty sng is incorrect.
I will do very simple proof.
First, I was importing with these settings:
I imported couple sngs where I finished 1st (so we can calculate net adjusted for all players) each into empty database (for easy comparsion).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparsion, here are the correct results for some 15$ 9man turbo sngs (13.89$ + 1.11$) with 50/30/20 payouts (on pokerstars):
9.99$ is the rake of all players, and its apparent the sum of "C net adj" of all players should be zero minus the rake. so its correct, (1c lost due to rounding probably in some games)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is 15$ 9man turbo Knockout on pokerstars
11.28$ + 2.82$ + 0.9$
(2.82$ = bounty
0.9$ = rake)
50/30/20
Now look at the differences of sums of "C net won" and "C net adj".
"C net adj" in PT4 is undervalued, and many KO sng regs who use PT4 claim the same.
Please will you look at the "C Net Adjusted" for Bounty sng again?
The way you calculate C Net Adjusted for Bounty sng is incorrect.
I will do very simple proof.
First, I was importing with these settings:
I imported couple sngs where I finished 1st (so we can calculate net adjusted for all players) each into empty database (for easy comparsion).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparsion, here are the correct results for some 15$ 9man turbo sngs (13.89$ + 1.11$) with 50/30/20 payouts (on pokerstars):
9.99$ is the rake of all players, and its apparent the sum of "C net adj" of all players should be zero minus the rake. so its correct, (1c lost due to rounding probably in some games)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is 15$ 9man turbo Knockout on pokerstars
11.28$ + 2.82$ + 0.9$
(2.82$ = bounty
0.9$ = rake)
50/30/20
Now look at the differences of sums of "C net won" and "C net adj".
"C net adj" in PT4 is undervalued, and many KO sng regs who use PT4 claim the same.
Please will you look at the "C Net Adjusted" for Bounty sng again?
1) Download and install PokerTracker 4.13.1 (our latest release)
2) Create a new database
3) Import the tournament you used as an example into the new database, using the same settings. Can you reproduce the issue?
4) Create a support ticket on our website by clicking Support > Contact Us. Attach the hand histories, the summary, and a link to this post in your ticket -- then post the ticket number as a reply to this post so we can trace the ticket.
As we have discussed in prior responses to this topic with you, screen captures and anecdotal evidence will not help us to verify your claim - we need to see either the actual hand histories and summary for the entire tournament or mathematical proof of an error to be able to address your claims. In this scenario, the histories will suffice so we can see if we can (1) reproduce your screen capture then (2) trace the mathematical calculations to determine the sum. I have personally never looked at the Sum of Net Adjusted Winnings calculations so I cannot verify how the Sum total of a bounty event should look at a final table (SNG), but others in our team can once we have the hand histories. As a reminder, we prorate the surviving bounties based on ICM chip % - but as I explained above I do not know how this will appear when Summed together so its best to let the experts on our team review your hand histories before we comment further. Thnx!
- TT
Last edited by PokerTracker; 02-11-2015 at 12:27 PM.
02-11-2015
, 02:59 PM
What report did you use to create the player finish screen capture that shows the Net Adjusted Winnings? Did you create a custom report in My Reports > All Players using a new database, then adding the GC Won & GC Net Adjusted stats? We do not have a report that shows the summing of Net Adjusted results in a tournament among all players, it is possible that the summation is incorrect but the recording of the tournament is Net Adjusted Calculations accounting for bounties is in fact correct - I'm afraid your report does not verify anything as-is due to this possibility. With that said we are certainly investigating, we also want to know what the source of this discrepancy is - but at this point I am leaning towards assuming its a summation issue. Time will tell, once we know more we will report back.
Since we are on the topic, you may wish to see how we account for bounties in Net Adjusted Winnings calculations. In the example used below we have a 9-player PS $1.08 + .27 + .15 bounty tournament. the bounty fee is .27. The Hero wins this tourney. The ICM Equity Start and ICM Equity End stats are used to verify calculations using a Hand report, Net Adjusted Winnings should always be first verified at the hand level - not the tournament or player level as you showed in your report.
For ICM "Start of hand" stats, PT4 prorates the surviving bounties based on the chip ICM%. So you see the ICM Eq Start is $1.35, and the % is 11.11 which are both correct. In the case of a player who is near death at 1% ICM, he will only be entitled to 1% of the surviving bounty pool.
For ICM "End of hand" stats, PT4 awards bounties when appropriate. In this way the ICM stats reflect the true difference between a bounty and a non-bounty game. The proper strategy adjustments (i.e., extra aggression against shorter stacks) will be reflected in ICM Push/Fold simulations.
Note that the winner shows ICM eq End of $5.41. This is correct - (1.08 * 9) * .50 (1st prize) + .27 + .27 (2nd place bounty + his own bounty)
There is one unusual side-effect here. There is an ICM drop between a bounty winner's ICM end hand and the start of the next hand due to "banking the bounty". Since we can not tell who won what bounties in the past we can not have a rolling win rate. The individual net won stats will be correct, but all ICM stats are based upon the entry fee prize pool + surviving player bounties.
What does all this mean? It would be best if you find a specific hand where there is an ICM discrepancy which you believe results in inaccurate Net Adjusted Winnings calculations, rather than show us a report that lists the results of each player and a summation of their net adjusted winnings. The only thing your report shows us is that there might be a problem with summation, it does not show that there is an error in Net Adjusted Winnings calculation. Of course its theoretically possible that the summation error caused by Net Adjusted Winnings miscalculation, but your graph does not tell us enough - we need to know if a calculation error occurs at the hand level.
PS: One of our team members is reviewing your support ticket regardless of the above.
- TT
Since we are on the topic, you may wish to see how we account for bounties in Net Adjusted Winnings calculations. In the example used below we have a 9-player PS $1.08 + .27 + .15 bounty tournament. the bounty fee is .27. The Hero wins this tourney. The ICM Equity Start and ICM Equity End stats are used to verify calculations using a Hand report, Net Adjusted Winnings should always be first verified at the hand level - not the tournament or player level as you showed in your report.
For ICM "Start of hand" stats, PT4 prorates the surviving bounties based on the chip ICM%. So you see the ICM Eq Start is $1.35, and the % is 11.11 which are both correct. In the case of a player who is near death at 1% ICM, he will only be entitled to 1% of the surviving bounty pool.
For ICM "End of hand" stats, PT4 awards bounties when appropriate. In this way the ICM stats reflect the true difference between a bounty and a non-bounty game. The proper strategy adjustments (i.e., extra aggression against shorter stacks) will be reflected in ICM Push/Fold simulations.
Note that the winner shows ICM eq End of $5.41. This is correct - (1.08 * 9) * .50 (1st prize) + .27 + .27 (2nd place bounty + his own bounty)
There is one unusual side-effect here. There is an ICM drop between a bounty winner's ICM end hand and the start of the next hand due to "banking the bounty". Since we can not tell who won what bounties in the past we can not have a rolling win rate. The individual net won stats will be correct, but all ICM stats are based upon the entry fee prize pool + surviving player bounties.
What does all this mean? It would be best if you find a specific hand where there is an ICM discrepancy which you believe results in inaccurate Net Adjusted Winnings calculations, rather than show us a report that lists the results of each player and a summation of their net adjusted winnings. The only thing your report shows us is that there might be a problem with summation, it does not show that there is an error in Net Adjusted Winnings calculation. Of course its theoretically possible that the summation error caused by Net Adjusted Winnings miscalculation, but your graph does not tell us enough - we need to know if a calculation error occurs at the hand level.
PS: One of our team members is reviewing your support ticket regardless of the above.
- TT