Because all-in EV is just one component of the “actual” EV.

Lol

Sorry I misword it. But how would it look if someone loses by $100k but was -$500k in all-in EV? Do people still really view that guy as the worse player?

You buncha nocoiner jacksess probably would.

People who think AIEV equates to true EV are fish, and it’s one of the things losing players cling to to justify losing.

That’s what makes it such a great stat.

What kind of losing players have winning all-in EV? Maybe I don't understand what all-in EV is.

There is the stats for all the hands you've played and you have your RESULTS. Then there's an additional stat that says ALL-in EV. And it calculates your equity on just the hands you got all-in on. Is it flawed in a big way? Does it calculate the EV on the entire pot, or just the amount you got all-in with?

For example.. Your sitting $100k deep with A-A against 10-10. You get $99k in preflop and a 10 hits the flop. You put 1k-all-in after the flop and lose to the set. What part of that does the all-in EV account for?

Except for that one blow out session Doug had awhile back, this thing is pretty close really. No doubt a blow out session is expected from time to time, and if Doug has another one I doubt Daniel can come back with the number of hands remaining.

Of course, what the hell do I know.

On what planet does this hypothetical ever happen?

In a case where AA and TT get it in pre, the AA has 85-odd per cent of the pot, and that would be the all-in EV. If the same player holding TT were to suck out on the player holding AA three times in a row with 100k stacks, the all-in EV of the AA player would be 255k (85*3) and the TT player would be running +555k (-300K actual vs. 255K expected) against all-in EV, more or less.

Someone check me on this. I'm tired and tipsy and in the middle of a family argument.

Few equate All-in EV to true EV, but taking the results adjusted for All-in EV will more likely be closer to the true EV, than taking the unadjusted results.

The point is, why are people saying that all-in EV is some bullshit stat to look at? Is it massively skewed for scenarios like I just stated? Otherwise they are full of ****.

You should take your question to the appropriate forum: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...ers-questions/

Very short take to end it ITT:
AIEV is one of many stats that can be looked at, but it is overrated because of gameplay dynamics and other factors. Like most statistics, on its own it tells an incomplete story open to individual interpretation. It’s a fairly useless stat to use when analyzing gameplay and identifying leaks. Your unrealistic example is one of many reasons why it is a flawed stat. Sometimes it simply doesn’t matter what street the money gets in, if it was destined to get in anyway. AIEV doesn’t tell this story, and often warps it.

Say you have AJ and your opponent has 55 and the board comes JJ55J. It doesn’t matter when the money goes in, it’s going in at some point no matter what, but your AIEV will vary wildly depending when the trigger is pulled.

Let's say you flop a set of kings IP BTN vs CO after a 4-bet. Flop is KT9r, villain bets and you call. Turn is a 9, bringing in a flush draw. Villain bets, you shove, villain calls, turns over 99 and you have a one-outer.

Your AIEV is 4.5%, but obviously you had an overwhelming equity advantage preflop, flop, and got unlucky on the turn. You played the hand fine, but it looks like you punted a buy-in on your graph.

That is the problem with AIEV. It can't account for card variance or situational play outside of "how lucky/unlucky were you in all-in situations?" You had top FH on a wet board, the money was going in, and it would be a huge mistake for the money to not go in, but your all in EV will reflect the fact that you had next to zero equity when it did. That doesn't mean you played badly, it just is.

At the same time, it is almost certainly closer to how you're playing than your green line, if only because it accounts for one extra piece of variance.

... and this comes out of the SJW handbook I am guessing? or is this contractual agreement an actual thing?

Guyz let's try to make at least 1/3 posts relevant to the thread.

Sure, I had 2 questions and you answered 0. Well done.

I like how he starts with "actually" as if it was a real thing

To end the derail, defamation is a tort that you can sue on and recover. So if you are defamed, you have a legal remedy on which you can rely. It has nothing to do with SJWs; it comes from the English common law running back three or four hundred years.

On the all-in EV point, it is an incomplete statistic that the delusional can overweight. The edge cases cited above are part of the problem but not the whole story. For example, DN has put a ton of money in the pot on the river in situations where he has made a straight and doug has made a back door flush. In those spots -- which are presumably symmetric -- DN's result is exactly equal to his all-in EV.

https://youtu.be/x4kY1V64fm0

How can anyone say dnegs has improved or isn't that big of a dog when 10min into the video majority of hands are missplayed. His bet sizing are still so 2000. 45x handbcr bottom two vs a small bet 3x. Someone should explain him the concept of value and protection on wet boards. U don't need to pio the hand to know that he would have to 4-5x the 1/3bet.

Thats just one hand. He is missing so much value and often giving dp just perfect odds for calling and then stationing the river. Pretty sure any nl100 HU reg would beat him aswell

My bad. I underestimated your stupidity.

It just calculates the EV at the moment you're all-in. It doesn't take into account previous streets. In the scenario you mentioned, it would only account for the $1k put in on the flop.

It's still a useful stat, but only tells a very small part of the story. For example, a bad player could call a massive turn overbet with a naked gutshot for half his stack, hit the river, then donk shove. In this case, his all-in EV is equal to the entire pot since he had 100% equity when the last of his chips went in. However, he had only around 8% equity on the turn and actually made a very poor play, but the AIEV stat wouldn't account for this. The same player could then proceed to lose AK vs. QQ preflop, and his overall graph for the session would show him running below all-in EV, despite him actually being quite lucky.

AIEV is also flawed in other ways, such as not taking into account likely dead cards preflop. That's why the bots that collude in PLO on ACR all have a tanking EV line but are actually winning huge. The inverse of the same phenomenon can occur if someone goes on monkey tilt and starts open shoving hands like 23o preflop. Check out Paisting's thread in PG&C if you want to read more about that.

.

Nor does All-In EV account for bets made on the River, or better put, the AIEV for riverbets=the result of the hand, so bad rivercalls bloat your negative AIEV.

Uh, yeah, but the bad rivercalls will bloat your winnings exactly as much as they bloat your AIEV, so it doesn't impact difference between AIEV v winnings line at all.

As pointed out multiple times already: AIEV is on average closer to ones true winrate than the winnings/losses results line is. Poker variance comes in many shapes, AIEV simply removes one of them (the luck factor of the board runout when being all in before the river)

What about ppl who think actual winnings are a more accurate measurement than aiev adjusted?

Maybe you can get staked for a $200/400 match with DN.

Listened to the interview from the last session...

Doug said "I need to get a new RNG". Does he actually sit there with an RNG that when he is in a situation where he should be calling 25% of the time and run his RNG to see if he should call or not?