we were talking of 100BI under EV not 100 BI downswing.

All I was saying is : because IMO the EV line is such a bad representation of variance, you can't just sit there and think it will all be all right at the end (because you are under your EV line). As a poker player I believe when you have downswing you should start looking at your game and making sure it's really because you are running bad. Just looking at the EV adjusted line IS NOT a good indication of that.

(I have been playing these exclusively for more than a year and I am unfortunately very aware of the variance involved)

i think this format will have really good traffic for a while, fish win at a greater % than any other game, any player can reel off multiple wins in a row against the best of regs, the time investment for rec players is low (they can win quick), humans like instant gratification, i don't see it drying up for another while so long as poker and pokerstars is still thriving. all things pass with time, there will be some other incarnation of the S&G in some years time and I'm sure something else will kill the hypers, but for now, long may it last.

Is it normal that there is not a single Turbo game at 100s+ running now?

First of all 100BI under EV is probably more likely than 100BI real money downswing for someone like Skai.

Secondly, let's look at "Just looking at the EV adjusted line IS NOT a good indication of that." I'd strongly encourage you to ask yourself whether you believe this based on fact, or feeling. There are a few things to bring up here - to start, you say that if you're -3% ROI, but +3% EV ROI, you should ignore the EV line, and scramble to look at your game, and not just say "it's OK, I'm probably a winner, my red-line tells me so".

Player A: Results are 3%, HEM EV ROI is 3%.
Player B: Results are -3%, HEM EV ROI is 3%.

If you are just given this evidence, Player A is equally likely to be a winning player as Player B. But your argument doesn't make it sound like that at all. Your argument makes it sound like if you're chugging along at 3% actual, 3% EV line, and then have a stretch of -3% actual, +3% EV, that your EV line is somehow not to be trusted, and that there's an increased chance you're playing poorly. But that's complete nonsense. If you ran even in all-in pots, something you have absolutely no control over, you'd continue to be chugging along at 3%. Sure, you could be getting lucky or unlucky in other ways, but that's always the case. If 100% of your downswing is already explained by all-in luck, then you should be in no more of a hurry to re-evaluate your game was you were when you were steadily printing money at a constant 3%.


You've made dead wrong posts on this issue for a long time now in the face of very good posts by a lot of folks - not "well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" type stuff, but the factual basis of your approach to the EV line. I say this not to be a dick but because it's an internet poker forum and direct is generally a good thing. Knowing how to interpret my results, both EV and actual, made me tons of money in game selection and in adjusting my play. It's a shame to throw that away because of feelings about the EV line that have nothing to do with the math of it.

Yea, good post Mers.

Hi Mers

Yes I understand no pbs. And to speak frankly, with your "status" in this forum (and a well deserved one) and the respect I have for you game and theory post (and videos) I don't really enjoy clashing with you all the time on this one. But neither can I just blindly accept things that I don't believe are correct. So on with the discussion:

No, it’s not what I am meant.

What I mean is that there is no relation between how well you play and your HEM EV adjusted line. You can play like crap and run well but you can ALSO play like crap and run bad (and same with playing well). These facts (running well or bad, playing well or bad) have no bearing on each other, they are not mutually exclusive. For instance, I open shove 74o 20 BB deep and my opponent calls with 62o and win. I am running bad and way under my HEM EV adjusted line. Does this mean I played well and should keep open shoving 74o 20 bb deep? Of course not! I am running under EV but playing horrible.
In consequence, if running well or bad has nothing to do with playing well, when you are losing money, should you be explaining it by saying that you are running bad? No you shouldn’t, you should look if you are still playing well which is quite different. However, I agree with you, your downswing does not mean you are playing bad neither.

I also question the usefulness of the HEM EV adjusted line as an indicator. IMO other variance factors, not taken into account, are as important and if they were taken into account would completely change the way variance looks on our graphs.

1. The HEM EV adjusted line is only for all in pots. What happen generally in an HUSNG is: you play some pots, one of you lose many chips, and we end up in the end game when most of the All ins happens. Now if you have been running horrible in all these non-All in pots you are left with a few chips, shove and suck out your HEM EV adjusted line will only show you as being “lucky” this is obviously not a true representation of the situation. These non all in pots (and I play more non all in pot than all in pots!) are unaccounted for.
   
   
2. Hand distribution is completely ignored. I open shove A9o 10 bb deep, get snapped by AKo and suck out. am I lucky? Well not so sure ...From the beginning of the hand (), there was only a 4% chance that my opponent had a bigger A, but A9o had 26% equity vs Ako. Once again The HEM EV adjusted line will not show a true representation of the situation.
   
   
3. The HEM EV adjusted line is for hand vs hand and does not take into account Hand ranges. You could make a +EV shove vs a range that would be –EV hand vs hand.
   
   
4. And also as Jspazz pointed out the HEM EV adjusted line
   Quote:

   can be farther away from your true winrate than the actual winnings are
   Even if it’s likely to be more accurate it doesn’t mean it is. I would also add that the EV line itself is also subject to variance!

The HEM EV adjusted line does what it is meant to do and should be taken into account but I just think that what it measures is not that relevant, people focus way too much on it and it is subject to misinterpretation (just read the ST thread). it seems to me that People now associate variance in HUSNG with this line, this is wrong and potentially dangerous for your game. There is a lot more to variance than EV vs a paticular hand in all in pots! It might seem obvious to you but I don't think it is for everyone

But I hope I am wrong because I am 150BI under my EV line


ya that was a stupid comment from me

"If 100% of your downswing is already explained by all-in luck, then you should be in no more of a hurry to re-evaluate your game was you were when you were steadily printing money at a constant 3%."

That was his main point, I believe. You didn't have to write out that long post, pretty sure Mers understands the other forms of luck not accounted for

it's far superior to the actual winnings line, besides point 4 which really is negligible you're doing nothing to argue that. All you're doing is explaining why it's not perfect which mers never claimed.

Why would there be no relation between how well you play and your HM AIEV. Do you think there is no relation between how well you play and your actual results? of course there is, but the relation between how well you play and HM AIEV is simply even stronger.

Since people are in general not very good at honestly judging themselves you have to use something as some sort of feedback and HM AIEV graph is probably the best way for that assuming it's not bugged.

why are people too stubborn to accept that the name "EV-line" might be inappropriate and simply recognize what it does and what not.

ev adjusts your winnings for one part of variance and is hence statistically a better approximation to your "expected winnings" than your actual profit. how much the two differ depends on format and it should be obvious that in hyperturbos the "EV-line" is a huge deal because the "all-in luck" is a bigger part of variance than in other formats where "cooler luck" plays a bigger role.

why should you recognize the importance of your EV-line? because besides working on your game on yourself and with others it is the best way to estimate your skill/future success in the games you are playing. i will just pull some numbers out of nowhere which are certainly not right, just to explain my general idea. let's say after 10k hyperturbos you can be sure about your roi in a confidentiality interval of +-1%. let's say you get the same confidence in your roi, again +-1%, after 2k games looking at your EV-roi.

those numbers are most certainly incorrect, but the general idea is definitely true: looking at your EV-roi will get you a general idea of your success in the games in much smaller time and hence if you look at winnings at all, it is an ignorant approach to consider actual profits while neglecting the EV-line.

Sounds like you're being results orientated. Yes jamming A9o at 10bbs will be correct and when you run into AKo your EV line will go down, but over the long run, everytime you jam A9o at 10bbs, all the times you get called by worse, called by better and get folds will make your EV line go up because there is more times you get folds/called by worse.
So if you had an EV line for this specific situation of jamming A9o 10bbs, obviously sometimes your EV line will go down, but overall it will increase.

Why do you think the HM EV line goes up? There will be tons of times you make a +EV play and run into the top of peoples ranges, making your EV line go down. But over all the instances of this situation, where you make this +EV play and run into the top of their range, middle of their range and bottom of their range, your EV line will go up because there are more situations where you run into the middle/bottom of their range.

yeah std at times

we have to grind lower stakes or learn hypers

if there was a 1bb game on stars where 1 is auto allin (BB) the other has 1/2 blind posted (SB) and can choose to call or fold. how long it would take all fish to call ATC?

3 1/2 seconds

because there isn't one as shown in my example. Here is another one: villain open shove and you calll with a GS and you don't have the right odds, but as it happen villain doesn't have anything and your high card beats his high card but on the turn he sucks out, you are now under EV! does this mean that you played it well and your variance is du to all in EV? Should you carry on making that play?

and this is why you cannot explain your downswing by all in luck.

you obviously shouldn't evaluate your play in specific situations by looking at your EV for that hand...

once again all you are doing is showing why it's not a 100% correct representation, you have not at all "shown in your example" why there's no relation

genher, the point is that hem ev is more likely to be a good approximation of your true winrate than actual results. nobody is saying that hem ev is actual ev.

This is true but is it that much better? Go in HEM, do a report on holecards, look how many chips you won overall. Now filter to have only the All-in pots and see how much of a % of your total chips won it represent.

I know that, you do too and so does Mers, but it will be quickly obvious to anyone reading the ST thread (for instance) that in the mind of a lots of people their EV line = a representation of their variance.

Sorry Hundrye I don't mean to be an idiot but I have trouble understanding where you find a problem with my examples. You are in both example running under EV. Please tell me, can you say that both these play were good? Should you carry on making them? Can you deduce by looking at your EV line that your play was correct? if not then there is no relation.

That's correct because there is no relation between both. Wich is exactly why you shouldn't explain one with the other (your downswing with your EV line). Running bad in all in pots doesn't tell you if you were right to be all in in the first place

according to this logic there would also be no relation between quality of play and actual results. This would make it impossible to be an actual winning player unless you cheated or whatever

it's a completely different situation. here we are talking about the relation between EV adjusted in All In pots and quality of play. Not the other way round. The more your all in are correct the more correct will you EV adjusted line be, but the oposite is not necessarily true meaning you can't look at your EV line and deduce that going all in was correct in the first place.
The better you play the better your results will be, you are correct. There is a relation. But it doesn't work the other way. It's not because your results are good that you necessarily play well. This is not a valid logical deduction

playing better does not guarantee better results either. you're just randomly claiming one way it has to be conclusive evidence for there to be a relation and not the other way

The better you play the more likely it is your results are good, the better your results are the more likely it is you've been playing good. there's a relation both ways

allow me one question genher: what is your position in this argument? do you think that the EV-line is less viable than your actual winnings to approximate your performance in the games played?

no $ hu e1s solid

How about this. You get in AA preflop vs 84o first hand. Flop is 884. Can you deduce by looking at the actual winnings that your play was correct? if I got right what you're saying, there cannot be a relation. now what if you repeat that same situation (AA vs 84) a hundred times and then check the results. say you won 70% of those matches. do you still think there is no relation?

replace AA by 94o, you are also ~ a 70% fav and you are also massively under your EV line. can you deduce from your EV line that it was correct to open shove 94o first hand?