Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
I think the problem here is that the ranges are too big. We can only speculate about the matchups in those ranges, and that's not very scientific. Reducing the ranges to, say, 2% spreads instead of the current 10% spreads would eliminate most or all of the bias in the sample.
Another approach might be to sort by hand category rather than equity ranges.
You made some good points.
I'm asking for another run split by 2% ranges, if I can get him to do it. I think at that granularity we can easily fill in the hand categories based on the equity (and do so more carefully).
Thanks
Number of hands parsed: 102,661,557
Total preflop all-in situations: 535,950 (Once per 191.55 hands).
[Preflop Equity %): #All-ins #Wins Win%
[0.00 - 0.02): 0 0 0.0%
[0.02 - 0.04): 0 0 0.0%
[0.04 - 0.06): 46 2 0.043%
[0.06 - 0.08): 10202 682 0.067%
[0.08 - 0.10): 2071 152
0.073%
[0.10 - 0.12): 1722 197 0.114%
[0.12 - 0.14): 9424 1274 0.135%
[0.14 - 0.16): 3858 608 0.158%
[0.16 - 0.18): 7436 1338 0.18%
[0.18 - 0.20): 93772 17905 0.191%
[0.20 - 0.22): 2168 516
0.238%
[0.22 - 0.24): 2325 547 0.235%
[0.24 - 0.26): 29000 7304 0.252%
[0.26 - 0.28): 26160 6815 0.261%
[0.28 - 0.30): 44814 13266 0.296%
[0.30 - 0.32): 40589 12854 0.317%
[0.32 - 0.34): 23314 7631 0.327%
[0.34 - 0.36): 22147 7530 0.34%
[0.36 - 0.38): 18191 6784 0.373%
[0.38 - 0.40): 18082 7091 0.392%
[0.40 - 0.42): 19580 8061 0.412%
[0.42 - 0.44): 47204 21103
0.447%
[0.44 - 0.46): 52790 24259 0.46%
[0.46 - 0.48): 38580 18403 0.477%
[0.48 - 0.50): 21610 10650 0.493%
[0.50 - 0.52): 23340 11825 0.507%
[0.52 - 0.54): 38566 20171 0.523%
[0.54 - 0.56): 52804 28537 0.54%
[0.56 - 0.58): 47203 26100
0.553%
[0.58 - 0.60): 19581 11520 0.588%
[0.60 - 0.62): 18082 10991 0.608%
[0.62 - 0.64): 18191 11407 0.627%
[0.64 - 0.66): 22147 14617 0.66%
[0.66 - 0.68): 23314 15683 0.673%
[0.68 - 0.70): 40589 27735 0.683%
[0.70 - 0.72): 44814 31548 0.704%
[0.72 - 0.74): 26160 19345 0.739%
[0.74 - 0.76): 29000 21696 0.748%
[0.76 - 0.78): 2325 1778 0.765%
[0.78 - 0.80): 2168 1652
0.762%
[0.80 - 0.82): 93772 75867 0.809%
[0.82 - 0.84): 7436 6098 0.82%
[0.84 - 0.86): 3858 3250 0.842%
[0.86 - 0.88): 9424 8150 0.865%
[0.88 - 0.90): 1722 1525 0.886%
[0.90 - 0.92): 2071 1919
0.927%
[0.92 - 0.94): 10202 9520 0.933%
[0.94 - 0.96): 46 44 0.957%
[0.96 - 0.98): 0 0 0.0%
[0.98 - 1.00): 0 0 0.0%
Weevil - here it is. I marked the three paired ranges that are just slightly outside the expectation. And this is 50 ranges this time.
This one modified the algorithm to determine when at least one player is all-in preflop, so the total number of all-ins shown went up slightly.
So we have three ranges slightly off from expectation:
1. Of 2017 90/10 - 92/8 all-ins, the favorite won roughly 1.7% more than expected (from midpoint).
2. Of 2168 78/22 - 80/20 all-ins, the underdog won roughly 2.8% more than expected (from midpoint).
3. Of 47,204 56/44 - 58/42 all-ins, the underdog won roughly 1.7% more than expected (from midpoint).
I'll have to look at the likelihood of these outcomes, but with the small sample (due to narrow range) I think they are quite likely. I think it's pretty impressive that all the others are inside the ranges.
Last edited by spadebidder; 05-03-2009 at 04:05 PM.