Quote:
Originally Posted by teddyFBI
the most representative snapshot of one's results (other than your own PT or HEM database), right?
Compared to what? There's no other tracking site. So even if it was horribly inaccurate and was missing a large % of hands in a non-random fashion, it would still be "the most representative snapshot" even if it wasn't representative at all.
Quote:
Unless PTR is more likely to miss wins than losses (or vice versa), which is a patently ******ed proposition.
If it can be shown that it misses hands non-randomly, then there is a strong argument for saying it's unrepresentative (and suggesting that PTR pages shouldn't be used to decide if someone is a fit coach, video maker, etc).
The 'run it twice' issue seems like a one such example.
Let's say that PTR just ignores all RiT hands. Let's say we have a winning player who makes his money at showdown (and loses slightly without showdown), plays a very aggressive style so stacks off pre/on flop a lot (or is a short-stacker?)*, always has RiT checked, and most of his opponents do too. PTR will likely have him a loser even if he's a big winner. Seems pretty simple.
(* i'm not a NL player, my example may not be perfect but i'm sure some realistic example can follow these lines. It seems quite feasible that someone is a big 'winner' from pre-showdown all-ins, a loser in non-showdown pots, and thus will be grossly mis-represented by PTR)